The Shadow of Calvary, by Hugh Martin

 Banner of Truth Trust, 2016, 250pp

At the Banner of Truth Ministers' Conference it is customary for speakers to recommend titles that attendees might like to purchase from the bookshop. I believe it was on the strength of Sinclair B. Ferguson's recommendation that I bought The Shadow of Calvary by Hugh Martin. Ferguson spoke warmly of Martin's penetrating insight into the biblical text and of his rigorous use of 'holy reason' to draw out the precious truths contained therein. I must confess that having  flicked through the book, I placed it to one side in my study and didn't pick it up again for a year or so. 

I had been preaching a series of sermons loosely based on the words of 1 Peter 1:10-12, which speak of the 'sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories'. I had devoted several messages to various aspects of Christ's suffering and then wanted to zero in on the events leading up to Calvary. Namely, our Lord's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, his arrest and trial. Yes, I have various commentaries on the Gospel accounts of these events, but they can sometimes be lacking in theological reflection, which is what I was after. 

A bit like when Pharaoh's cup bearer remembered his fault in forgetting to put a word in for Joseph, I also recalled Hugh Martin's neglected book near the bottom of a 'to read' pile in my study. I'm glad I did. Reading Martin is like entering another world. His handling of the biblical narratives of Gethsemane, the arrest and trial of Christ is freshly original without being quirky. Martin had the knack of bringing out the doctrinal meat of a passage that had always been there, but you had not necessarily noticed it before. If Martin's reading of Scripture is theological, don't take that to mean his material is in any way dryly abstruse. Here you will find 'theology on fire' as the author unfolds the logic of gospel truth and warmly applies it to his readers. 

A few examples will have to suffice. At one point in his consideration of Jesus' prayer in the Garden, Martin ponders why our Lord was in such an agony over the prospect of bearing his people's sin. Why did he pray repeatedly to the Father, 'If it be possible take this cup from me, but not my will, but yours be done'? After all, Jesus was not about to become personally sinful and face the judgement of God upon his own sin. Rather he was going to bear the weight of his people's sin imputed to him. Martin's use of gospel logic is astounding at this point. He asks the believer whether having Christ's righteousness imputed to them fills them with great joy, even though it is not their own righteousness, but an alien righteousness that is put to their account? And so similarly, our Lord felt agonising sorrow over the prospect of 'becoming sin for us', with the cup of God's wrath pressed to his lips in our place. 'It is difficult to understand the sorrow and amazement of agony of a holy being in having sin thus by imputation imposed upon him'. (p. 26). 

Again, Marin considers why our Lord had to die having been arrested by legitimate authorities and then duly tried, rather than at the hands of an angry mob? Because, he explains, our Lord had not come to die as a  martyr to a cause, but as a sin-bearing sacrifice. As Romans 13 tells us, the 'governing authorities' are 'instituted by God'. The ruler is 'an avenger who carries our God's wrath on the wrongdoer'. Jesus was to be 'numbered with the transgressors', arrested, tried and condemned in our place. That is why he  did not resist arrest. That is why he remained silent before his accusers and judge. Jesus could not plead his own case and that of his people's before heaven's throne. 

As Martin reasons, 

There must be an explanation that will gloriously vindicate the justice of God in pursuing and prosecuting legally the man of sorrows. There must be an explanation which will not merely vindicate the character of God, in the sense of showing that this process or prosecution which the divine 'determinate counsel' carried on, is no impeachment of divine justice... There must be an explanation which will even swallow up the scandal in glory and make the very offence of the cross a fountain and a revelation of his high moral excellence and triumph - not only not the eclipse, but the victory of righteousness. 

The doctrine which thus at once vindicates the personal innocence of Jesus and the public righteousness of God, and transforms the scandal into glory, and the shame into moral loveliness, is the suretyship and substitution of Jesus in the room of his people, with the imputation to him, thereon, of his people's transgressions. (p. 95-96)

The writer did not content himself with mere exegesis of the details of the text. He perceived and set forth the driving theological message the Evangelists wished to convey. He was also profoundly aware that his readers had an eternal future ahead of them. In Chapter 12 Martin contrasts believing Nathan to whom Jesus says, 'hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man' (John 1:51), with unbelieving Caiaphas, to whom Jesus says, 'Hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven'. (Matthew 26:63-64). Martin presses the point home, 'You must either stand with Caiaphas in rejecting the Christ or with Nathaniel on receiving him. Each of them has a 'Hereafter'. And the question is, which of these two 'Hereafters' do you prefer? 'Today, while it is called today', you have your choice. 'Behold, now is the accepted time: behold, now is the day of salvation.' (p. 232-233).

We can certainly go to Hugh Martin (1822-85) for an enriched understanding of Scripture, but he is also a fine model of warm-hearted doctrinal preaching. How often do contemporary preachers 'stand as if they pleaded with men' to receive the offer of salvation in Christ?  

I hoped to be able to buy a copy of The Atonement by Hugh Martin at this year's Banner Ministers' Conference, but it was one of the many events that had to be cancelled due to the coronavirus outbreak. Martin's work on the cross of Jesus was the next title we were due to discuss in our local theological study group. Who knows whether June's meeting will be able to go ahead? One thing is sure, time spent in the Shadow of Calvary and contemplating Christ's Atonement is never wasted. We look to the one who 'took our illnesses and bore our diseases', that 'with his stripes' this sin-sick world might be healed (Matthew 8:17, Isaiah 53:5). 

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, Edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her:

Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective 

Edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, Crossway, 2013, 703pp

The doctrine of definite atonement has long been a storm centre for theological controversy. Even theologians who agree with most other key aspects of historic Calvinistic teaching baulk at accepting that Christ died solely for the elect. Hence the attempt by Hypothetical Universalists and Amyraldians to have their theological cake in terms of preserving unconditional election, while eating a universalist doctrine of the atonement in which Christ died for all human beings without exception. Perhaps part of the problem is with the label 'limited atonement'. Admittedly, it carries the advantage of putting the 'L' into TULIP, but in almost every other respect it is unhelpful, if not misleading. After all, unless you are an absolute and unqualified universalist and believe that all human beings are going to be saved in the end, your theology of the cross is going to entail certain limits. The question is, 'what limits?' Either Christ died only for the elect and therefore his atoning work was limited in its extent. Or we may take it that he died for all, but not all are saved, and so his death was limited in its saving effectiveness. For that reason the editors are to be congratulated ensuring that 'definite atonement' rather than 'limited atonement' is used consistently throughout the book to describe the view that Christ died definitively and savingly for his people. Bang goes TULIP then, but since when as mnemonic suitability come before theological accuracy?  

Whatever it's called, some people may wonder whether this point of doctrine important enough to warrant the reader ploughing though a hefty 700 page multi-author volume. Isn't 'definite atonement' one of those teachings that may well  be fascinating to historical theologians, but has a slender biblical base, little constructive theological value and almost no pastoral relevance? Er, no. Biblically, theologically and pastorally definite atonement is of huge import. If the cross of Christ is at the heart of God's way of salvation, then understanding what was accomplished at the cross and the significance of that accomplishment for the life and mission of the church must count for something. The opening chapter on Sacred Theology and the Reading of the Divine Word sets the stage by mapping out a constructive theological approach to the doctrine of definite atonement. The editors argue for an integrative methodology that takes Scripture seriously, is sensitive to the theological heritage of the church, systematically rigorous and pastorally helpful. It is intended that this approach will yield a cumulatively persuasive case  for the doctrine of definite atonement. Although polemics cannot be avoided when treating a subject like this, the editors wish to model a firm, yet respectful engagement with critics of the view advocated in this book. 

A stellar cast of Reformed luminaries has been assembled to explore definite atonement from almost every angle. The book begins with a study of definite atonement in church history. Fascinating chapters give attention to the presence of the doctrine in the Ancient, Medieval and Reformed Church. It seems that for centuries the definiteness of the atonement was assumed by the great thinkers of the Church, but only became a matter of intense theological argumentation in the light of the Remonstrant controversy. In the face of Arminian pressure the Synod of Dort opted to maintain the doctrine of definite atonement. The historical studies provide the background to the later biblical, theological and pastoral sections. Indeed, the fact that many writers opt to interact with figures mentioned in the historical chapters as biblical and theological dialogue partners means that the book can have a slightly repetitive feel. The deja vu factor, often a failing with multi-author works is unusually pronounced here. Hypothetical Universalism is especially done to death. Perhaps the editors could have been a little more ruthless with their star writers, 'been there, done that, sorry'. That said, it's not just the usual suspects like Moise  Amyraut who attract attention. The views of Karl Barth, John McLeod Campbell, J.B and T. F. Torrance, are also carefully critiqued. 

However, a tendency to go round in circles aside, it has to be said that there is a wealth of good things in this book. Some of the chapters are simply outstanding. Tempting as it may be, I'm not going to mirco-review every contribution in here. Flagging up some of the highlights will have to suffice. On the Biblical Perspective front, J. Alec Motyer on Isaiah's Suffering Servant is amazingly insightful. Jonathan Gibson's handling of the Pauline material is exegetically cogent and theologically rich. Thomas Shreiner faces some "Problematic Texts" with honesty and persuasiveness. It would be invidious to single out chapters from the Theological Perspective section, so full is it with mind expanding and heart warming theological reflection. Just read it. The same goes for the final section on the pastoral implications of definite atonement. 

Taken as a whole, the book left me with a deep sense that the doctrine of definite atonement is rooted in Holy Scripture, is essential for understanding salvation as the united action of the Holy Trinity, and is vital for the life and mission of the Church. Christ's death did not simply make salvation a possibility should anyone have wished to be saved. He came from heaven to seek the people given him by the Father before the world was made. Jesus saved them by his blood. He secured in his atoning work the power of the Spirit to bestow repentance and faith upon the elect that they may receive all the benefits of his atoning work on their behalf. And so we can be confident that a vast multitude that no man can number will be gathered from all nations. Chosen by God, redeemed by Jesus and made new by the Spirit, they will unite their voices in a shout of eternal praise to triune God who saved them. 

Highly recommended. 

Good Friday and the Son's impassible passion

For thus we say that He both suffered and rose again, not as though God the Word suffered in His own Nature either stripes or piercings of nails or the other wounds (for the Godhead is Impassible because It is also Incorporeal), but since that which had been made His own body suffered these things, He again is said to suffer for us, for the Impassible was in the suffering Body. (St Cyril's First Letter to Nestorius, here). 

According to Cyril of Alexandria, at Calvary, "the impassible was in the suffering Body". In so saying Cyril rightly affirmed the impassibility of the divine Word and also took into account that the Word made flesh suffered for us in his humanity. This is where the communicatio idiomatum or 'communion of attributes' in the incarnate Son comes into play. That which was true of Jesus only in his humanity, i.e. he suffered and died, was not an act of his human nature per se, but the act of the person of the Son in and through his humanity. It is  not sufficient to say that the divine nature of the Son remained impassible, while his human nature suffered on the cross. Rather, it was the case that the person of the Son of God suffered for us in his humanity, Galatians 2:20. 

When theologians speak of the 'passive' obedience of Christ at the cross, as distinct from the 'active' obedience of his life, it is not meant to suggest that Christ was inactive at Calvary. When used in this context, 'passive' means 'suffering', in the same way that 'impassibility' means 'without suffering'. However, we must remember that the  whole of Jesus' incarnate life involved suffering (Hebrews 5:8), and that his death was a positive act of obedience (Philippians 2:8 cf. John 10:17-18). In the words of B. B. Warfield, 'His very passion was his own action.' (The Person and Work of Christ, p. 134, P&R). 

This is important, because we should not think of Christ as a mere victim of suffering. The Son did not suffer on the cross primarily in order to show empathy with a world racked by pain and tragedy. Certainly, Jesus our great high priest is able to sympathise with our weaknesses, (Hebrews 4:15). But his cross was not so much an act of divine identity with a suffering world, as divine self-substitution for a guilty world. The good news is this: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3 cf. 1 Peter 3:18). 

What we sinners need above above all else is not the sympathy fellow-sufferer, but the salvation accomplished by a substitute-sufferer. Jesus'  cry on the cross was not, "Now I know how you feel!", but, "It is finished!". We are saved by the impassible passion of the Word made flesh and crucified for us at Golgotha. 

Cicero on the offence of the Cross

Wretched is the loss of one's

good name in the public courts,

wretched, too, a monetary fine

exacted from one's property,

and wretched is exile.

But, still, in each calamity

there is retained some trace of liberty.

Even if death is set before us,

we may die in freedom.

But the executioner,

the veiling of heads,

and the very word ‘cross,’

let them all be far removed

from not only the bodies

of Roman citizens

but even from their thoughts,

their eyes, and their ears.

(Cicero, 106-43BC, Pro Rabirio Postump 16)

Crucifixion was a reserved for the lowest of the low, rightless non-Roman citizens who had been sentenced to suffer a most excruciating death for their crimes. As a method of execution it was designed to humiliate and degrade as well as kill. On that basis it might be thought that the Christian church would want to hush up the fact that its founder, Jesus Christ was crucified. The opposite is the case. Jesus regarded his death by crucifixion as the moment of his exaltation when his divine glory would be most fully revealed, John 8:28, 12:32-33, 17:4. 

The apostles placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at the very heart of their preaching, 1 Corinthians 2:2. This was despite the fact that the idea of a crucified Messiah was a stumbling block to the Jews and an offence to the Greeks, 1 Corinthians 1:23. No amount of rhetorical razzle dazzle could obscure the "offence of the cross" (Galatians 5:11). That is why Paul renounced rhetoric and preached a crucified Christ in a crucified style, 1 Corinthians 2:1-3. He knew that nothing but the power of the Spirit of God could make his preaching convincing and effective, 1 Corinthians 2:4-5. 

The reason why the apostles made Jesus' scandalous death so central to their message is that they believed that he did not die for his own sins as a failed Messiah, but for ours, as the world's true Saviour. "Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8),  "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3), "who have himself a ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:6), "he himself is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2). 

The cross of Jesus is the great revelation of the glory of our triune God. There we see that the Father so loved the world that he have his only Son to suffer and die for us at Calvary. There we see the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us, bearing our sins in his body on the tree. There we see the eternal Spirit lovingly upholding the Son as he offered himself to God in our place. 

Cicero urged his fellow Roman citizens to avert their thoughts, eyes and ears from the cross.  But the cross of Jesus holds our thoughts captive. We live by looking to him who was lifted up for us. The message of the cross is a symphony of God's grace to our ears. That which was most shameful to Cicero was the proudest boast of the apostle Paul, Galatians 6:14.

That is why we sing...

 1    O what matchless condescension
            The eternal God displays;
        Claiming our supreme attention,
            To his boundless works and ways.
                    His own glory
            He reveals in gospel days.

    2    In the person of the Saviour,
            All his majesty is seen!
        Love and justice shine for ever;
            And, without a veil between,
                    Worms approach him,
            And rejoice in his dear name.

    3    Would we view his brightest glory,
            Here it shines in Jesus’ face;
        Sing and tell the pleasing story,
            O ye sinners saved by grace;
                    And with pleasure,
            Bid the guilty him embrace.

    4    In his highest work, redemption,
            See his glory in a blaze;
        Nor can angels ever mention
            Aught that more of God displays;
                    Grace and justice
            Here unite to endless days.

    5    True, ’tis sweet and solemn pleasure,
            God to view in Christ the Lord;
        Here he smiles and smiles for ever;
            May my soul his name record;
                    Praise and bless him,
            And his wonders spread abroad.

            (William Gadsby, 1773-1844) 

And the mystery theologian is...

Top marks to Gary Benfold (see comments on Name that theologian #1). It was Joseph Ratzinger, not Karl Barth, A. W. Tozer or P. T. Forsyth who said,

"if the Church were to accommodate herself to the world in any way that would entail a turning from the Cross, that would not lead to a renewal of the Church, but only to her death." (Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, Tracey Rowland, 2009, OUP)

As a convicted Evangelical Protestant I can't disagree with that statement. We must never forget that the cross of Christ is the source of the Church's renewal. We live because he died. But it is regrettable that Roman Catholic teaching does not do justice to the saving efficacy of the cross. The finality of the atonement is undermined by the idea that Christ's propitiatory sacrifice is re-offered at the Mass. The sufficiency of the atonement is compromised by Rome's unbiblical teaching on purgatory. Christ suffered for the sins of his people, making any further suffering on their part in "purgatory" unnecessary. When Jesus said, "It is finished!" He meant it.

The Ordinary Hero: Living the cross and resurrection by Tim Chester

The Ordinary Hero: Living the cross and resurrection
by Tim Chester, IVP, 2009, 221pp

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ lie at the very heart of the Christian faith. As Evangelical Protestants we preach that Christ died once and for all to save us from sin. We are also prepared to defend Jesus’ bodily in the face of unbelieving scepticism. But what impact should these gospel basics have on the life of the believer? As the subtitle suggests, this book is about living the cross and resurrection of Jesus.

Chester has the gift communicating his ides in crystal clear prose, with a generous sprinkling of vivid illustrations and telling quotations. He avoids technical jargon, apart from “eschatology”, which he goes out of his way to define. This work is evidently the product of careful scholarship, but Chester’s style is wonderfully engaging and accessible.

The writer delves into the Scriptures, basing what he has to say on a sound and insightful handling of the biblical materials. Chester writes with a keen awareness of the theological dimensions of his subject. He makes a good, biblically reasoned case for penal substitutionary atonement. He points to the cosmic implications of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. His resurrection is the first fruits of the new creation. However, Chester is incorrect to state that while in the tomb, Jesus’ flesh was “rotting into dust” (p. 185). As Peter is careful to point out in quoting from Psalm 16 on the Day of Pentecost, Jesus’ flesh did not see corruption (Acts 2:25-32 cf. Paul's similar words in Acts 13:35-37). His dead body was preserved from the corrupting effects of death by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Chester thoughtfully applies his teaching. Readers are challenged not simply to understand what the Bible has to say on of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but to live in the light of these things. The once crucified and now risen Saviour calls us to take up the cross and follow him, whatever the cost. As those who are united to Christ by faith, believers experience the power of his resurrection in their lives. But that power is not given to us so that we may breeze triumphantly trough life without a care in the world. Resurrection power is power that enables us to serve and suffer for Christ’s sake.

The author is pretty culture-savvy, referencing contemporary films and music. He gives a penetrating critique of today’s materialistic society. If the consumer is king, little room is left for humility, self-denial and sacrificial service. Only by being ‘ordinary heroes’, living the death and resurrection of Jesus will we find true joy and purpose in life.

Many believers tend to think of the Christian’s final hope in terms of dying and going to heaven. But Chester paints a more biblical picture of the eternal sate. When Jesus returns, our bodies will be raised up and made like Christ’s resurrection body. We shall live forever in the new creation in the presence of the triune God and in the company of his people. With this hope in our hearts we are motivated to live for Jesus in this fallen world.

Everyone who wants to know more about what it means to be an authentic follower of Jesus should read this most helpful and challenging book. Buy it and by God's grace, live it. Check out this video, where Tim Chester talks about what it means to be an 'ordinary hero'.
* An edited version of this review will appear in a forthcoming edition of Protestant Truth.

In my place condemned he stood

An Easter message on 1 Peter 3:18

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ lie at the heart of the Christian gospel. Everything centres around these central facts. Peter has been addressing the subject of Christians suffering for their faith, 1 Peter 3:14, 17. Now he relates our suffering for Christ to Christ’s suffering for us. If we sometimes have to suffer for doing good, then consider Christ who “suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust”. Here in this verse we have another one of those “Gospel soundbites” – a very brief and full statement of the truth that matters most.

I. Christ suffered for sins

We will never understand the suffering of Christ unless we grasp why he had to suffer – for sins. His death on the cross was a sin offering, Lev 4:2-3, Isaiah 53:10. What it is that makes sin so serious that nothing less than the suffering of Christ could save us? One of the early Archbishops of Canterbury was a man by the name of Anselm. He wrote a book called ‘Why did God become man?’ It was in the form of a dialogue between Anselm himself and a man called Boso. Anselm explained that Christ had to die to satisfy the honour of an offended God. Boso objected, “But that is far too harsh – did Christ really have to die so that we might be forgiven?” Anselm responded, “You have not yet appreciated the seriousness of sin.”

Sin is an offence to the infinite majesty of God. Sin detracts from his glory, Romans 3:23. Sin therefore deserves God’s terrible wrath and punishment. Some people have a problem with the eternal punishment of the wicked, but they have not grasped that when we sin against an infinite person, then we deserve infinite, unending punishment. When we sin, we break God’s law and defy him to his face. We refuse to acknowledge his sovereignty. We ungratefully despise his goodness and love. God will deal with sin justly. He would not be God if he simply ignored the problem and swept it under the carpet. Because God is holy love, he must deal with sin in a way that is right, whether in punishment or mercy.

Christ suffered for sins. That is why his suffering was so terrible. Films like Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ concentrate on Christ’s physical suffering. We should not minimise that. He suffered severe flogging. A crown of thorns was thrust upon his brow. He was nailed to a cross. He endured the most intense physical agony. But we have only looked at the surface of things if we focus on Christ’s physical sufferings. Earlier Peter wrote that Jesus “bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). That signified he was under God’s curse. (Galatians 3:13). Jesus suffered the punishment due to our sin. Christ suffered the God-forsakenness of a sin-condemned man. At the cross there was no reassuring word from the Father, “This is my beloved Son I whom I am well pleased”. There was only in impenetrable darkness of Calvary. Tradition tells us that Peter helped Mark write his Gospel. The Evangelist was careful to record the strange and mystifying words of Jesus upon the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). That is what Peter means by “Christ suffered for sins”. That is how seriously God takes sin. When his Son was made sin for us, he forsook him.

Now Christ endured his sufferings voluntarily. He gave himself to the suffering and forsakenness of the cross. As Rabbi Duncan put it, “Here was damnation and damnation taken lovingly.” His suffering was no futile gesture. Peter points us to the finality of Christ’s suffering for sin. He suffered “once”. The Epistle to the Hebrews repeatedly draws attention to this, 7:27, 9:28. Before Jesus died, he cried “Finished!” And it was finished. The work of redemption was accomplished because Christ had suffered for us once and for all.

We need therefore look no further than the cross for full and free forgiveness of all our sin. They have been punished in Christ and God is satisfied with the finished work of his beloved Son. Go to him therefore for fresh forgiveness and cleansing from sin. And if you are called to suffer for Christ’s sake then remember that whatever men may throw at you, they can never plunge you into hell. Christ suffered the torments of hell on the cross that you might not have to.

II. Christ suffered as a substitute: the just for the unjust

Christ did not die on the cross for his own sins. He suffered the “just for the unjust”. But where is the justice in that? I have heard of cases where drivers with 9 points on their licence have been caught by a speed camera. They don’t want to be banned from driving so they persuade a friend with a clean licence to say that they were driving the vehicle. The law views such actions very dimly. If caught, both parties may be had up for perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The guilty man who broke the speed limit deserves his fine and driving ban, not his innocent friend. The very law of God demands that justice be done – Deut 25:1. So, how come Christ died as a substitute, suffering as the just for the unjust? If the speed-camera scenario is dodgy justice, then what of the cross?

The difference is Christ did not suffer for his friends in a private capacity, in an attempt to thwart God’s justice. We have to bear in mind the doctrine of the believers’ union with Christ. Why are we sinners? Because Adam sinned. We share in his guilt, Romans 5:12. Adam was the representative head of the human race. His actions therefore affect us all. Christ is the representative head of God’s new humanity. He died for the sins of those whom the Father had given him in eternity. Yes, they were unjust sinners, but Christ had come to act as their substitute. He died in the place of those who were united to him in God’s eternal purpose, John 17:2, 4. Those who say that the idea of substitutionary atonement a travesty of justice ignore the plain teaching of Scripture and have failed to take into account the believer’s union with Christ.

Christ suffered as a substitute, the just for the unjust. And thank God he did, because unless the just and holy Saviour died in my place, there would be no hope for lost sinners like us. Will you join this guilty sinner in saying, “In my place condemned he stood, Hallelujah what a Saviour!”?

III. Christ suffered for a purpose: that he might bring us to God

Someone once asked Noel Coward if he had ever spoken to God. He replied, “We have never been properly introduced”. The cross is our introduction into God’s presence. Through the cross, Jesus takes us by the hand and brings us to the Father. We can now draw near to him. Fellowship has been restored, the way of access opened. We can have communion and fellowship with God in prayer, Ephesians 2:18. We can offer him our worship and service. Let us then make much of the blood-bought privilege drawing near to God in Christ.

The Saviour will ultimately bring us to God in the glory, Hebrews 2:10. He will do so “having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). We have seen that Christ was put to death in the flesh when he suffered and died on the cross. But that was not the end of the story. He was made alive “in the spirit”. That is a reference to Jesus’ mighty resurrection from the dead. He now he has what Paul calls a “spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). Christ is no longer “in the flesh”, subject to weakness and suffering. His bodily life exists in the life-transforming power of the Spirit.

Because Christ rose again, we too have the hope of resurrection life, 1 Peter 1:3. We shall be made partakers of his glory (1 Peter 5:1). Christ will bring us to God as resurrected and glorified human beings. Jesus did not die for us and rise again simply to “save our souls”. He will also raise up our bodies that they might be made like his glorious body. Isn’t that just amazing? The resurrection of Jesus is the reason for the hope that is in us in a hopeless and dying world. Do you share this living hope through Christ who suffered for sins and was made alive in the spirit? Are you trusting in him to bring you to glory and to God?

Our God is the end of the journey,
His pleasant and glorious domain:
For there are the children of mercy,
Who praise him for Calvary’s pain.
(William Vernon Higham)

Mark 15: Passion with a Purpose (Part 2)

[See here for Part 1]

4. Jesus is mocked by his enemies

In films like The Passion of Christ, the sheer physical brutality of crucifixion is brought to the fore. Mark, however, places that in the background. However, Mark is very restrained when it comes to the gore factor. 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? Because this too is a sign that Jesus is dying under God's judgement. Consider Deut 28:37. Also, 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 neighbours.
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.

5. Jesus is enveloped in darkness

While on the cross, Jesus was plunged into darkness for three hours, Mark 15:33. This recalls the plague of darkness that fell upon Egypt prior to the Exodus. 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."

Jesus himself speaks of hell as “outer darkness”, a place devoid of the light of God’s presence. As Christ hung on the cross, the very elements spoke of the reality of God's judgement.

6. Jesus is forsaken by God

Now 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 a great mystery. The beloved Son abandoned by his Father. What is going on here? We have to remember that Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh. He was true God and true man. In his human consciousness he had always been aware of the fact that he was the Son of God (Luke 2). This was reinforced by the Father’s words at his baptism and transfiguration. Jesus delighted in the Father’s presence and approval – (John 8:29). But at the cross the Son was made sin. In his humanity, he bore the weight of our transgressions. When he most needed a word of reassurance from the Father, all he could sense was God’s holy displeasure against sin. Poignantly, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” [Emphasis added]. He felt forsaken by God because he was forsaken by God. “He gave him up for us all” (Romans 8:32). The Father abandoned his Son to the horrors of the outer darkness. The Son was bereft of all comfort. He was no longer cheered by a sense of the Father’s loving approval. The Father treated him not as Son but as sin. He poured out upon Jesus all the wrath and judgement that is due to us as sinners. The ever blessed Son of God was made a curse for us, "suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man". (John Calvin)

This does not mean that there was a rupture in the Trinity. If the Father gave the Son to the horrors of the cross, then it is also true to say that the Son loved us and gave himself for us. He offered himself to God by the eternal Spirit. Rabbi Duncan said, “Dying on the cross forsaken by his Father…it was damnation and damnation taken lovingly.” It is perhaps unhelpful to speak as do some theologians of God being forsaken by God at Calvary. It is more true to say that the Father forsook his Son as the Son in his humanity died for our sin. We must never forget that the Father loved the Son even as he forsook him. Perhaps he never loved him more, (John 10:17), but still he left his Son derelict and abandoned for us. That is the wonder of penal substitution. Mark 15 tells us that Jesus' passion was for us.

7. Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is disclosed as he bears our sin

We have the remarkable words of the centurion, "Truly this man was the Son of God" (15:39). This is what we are told about the identity of Jesus from the outset of this Gospel - Mark 1:1. It is the fact that in his Son, God has taken our sins upon himself that gives Jesus' sufferings their infinite atoning value. In my place condemned HE stood. Hallelujah, what a Saviour!

Part 1 was published yesterday. These articles originated in some notes for a pre-Easter Bible study inspired by this post by Martin Downes.

Mark 15: Passion with a Purpose (Part 1)

We perhaps tend to think that we should look to the Gospels for an historical description of the cross and to the Epistles to give us the meaning of Christ’s atonement. But we need to remember that the theology of the Epistles is rooted in the historical event of Christ’s death and that the Gospels give us history with a theological message. Mark’s passion narrative contains several indicators that Jesus died under God’s judgement for our sin. Here is passion with a purpose.

The idea that Christ died under the wrath of God is not limited to a few texts in the New Testament that use the term “propitiation”. That Christ died in our place, bearing the penalty of our sin, is at the heart of all that the New Testament has to say about the cross.

The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement was once regarded as a hallmark of authentic evangelical theology. These days, penal substitution is up for debate in evangelical circles. If you are interested in following the controversy, I suggest that you get hold of Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution, by Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach, IVP, 2007 (see my review here). But I don’t want to engage in that controversy directly in this post. I simply want to reflect on what Mark 15 has to say about the Son of God as sin-bearer.

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. Many of the signs of God’s judgment displayed here may be traced back to the terrifying covenant curses. These curses were directed at those who transgressed God’s covenant commands (Deut 27:26, 28:15). As we reflect on Mark’s passion narrative with this in mind, we will see that the Evangelist is telling us that Jesus was treated as covenant breaking sinners deserve to be treated. Mark gives us six signs that Jesus died under God's judgement.

1. Jesus 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. It is one of the covenant curses in Leviticus 27 & Deuteronomy 28, (Deut 28:47-50). This is expressed poetically in Psalm 106:40-41,

"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. Jesus 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 defence? Why does he not silence the lies of his enemies? Pilate is amazed at this (Mark 15:3-4). The Roman Governor knew full well that Jesus was innocent of the charges brought against him, (15:9 & 10, 14). But the sinless Jesus refused to plead his innocence. His silence 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 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). Mark also highlights the fact that Jesus identified himself with guilty sinners in 15:27 & 28. His was a guilty silence. But it is our guilt not his that he bore.

3. Jesus 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 was therefore substitutionary. For clearly in being hung on a tree, he was "cursed by God" for us. This is reinforced by the crown of thorns that Jesus was forced to wear by the Roman soldiers (Mark 15:17). Thorns are associated with God's curse upon creation after the fall (Gen. 3:17-19). Paul draws our attention to the fact that Jesus was made a curse for us in Gal. 3:10-13 cf. 1 Peter 2:24.

I hope to publish Part 2 tomorrow. These articles originated in some notes for a pre-Easter Bible study inspired by this post by Martin Downes.

Pierced for our Transgressions, a review

Pierced for our Transgressions: rediscovering the glory of penal substitution,
by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach, IVP, 2007, 373pp.

The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement was once one of the distinguishing features of evangelical Christian theology. It could almost be taken for granted that evangelical theologians and preachers taught that Christ died on the cross, bearing the penalty of his people's sin. This consensus has recently been called into question by a number of influential figures in the evangelical world. We find a case in point in the now notorious comments of Steve Chalke and Alan Mann on penal substitution,

"The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." (The Lost Message of Jesus, Zondervan, 2003, p. 182)

Such remarks demand a response. Does penal substitution really construe the cross in those terms? Messrs Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have risen to the challenge of explaining and defending the biblical teaching on penal substitutionary atonement. Their book was probably one of the most discussed theological works of 2007. Tom Wright (who endorsed The Lost Message of Jesus) entered the fray with a highly critical review. This, and the writers' response can be found here. Pierced for our Transgressions comes with ten pages worth of ringing endorsement of from some top evangelical luminaries including Don Carson, Jim Packer, John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson and John Frame. Given all the attention that the book has already received, why bother with a review? Well, it is possible that some people may not have read it yet!

What I liked about this book can be expressed in three words: style, structure and substance. The authors write in an easy, accessible style. Undue technicalities are avoided. But this does not mean that a depth of theological reasoning has been sacrificed for easy simplicities. The book has been designed to be read by any thoughtful Christian who wishes to grapple with the controversy over penal substitution. Although the work is polemical, you will find no carping criticism of the views the opposed by the writers.

The book is helpfully structured. It comes in two main parts, Making the Case and Answering the Critics. In part one, the controversy is introduced. Then the biblical material examined at some length. A pretty formidable case is made that the Bible does indeed teach that Christ died bearing the penalty of sin. Next, attention devoted to the theological framework for penal substitution. This view of the cross is related to the themes of creation, sin, the covenant of grace and intertrinitarian relationships within the Godhead. Due emphasis is given to the different biblical perspectives on the atonement. The cross was an act of victory over sin and the devil. By the death of Jesus, we are also redeemed and reconciled to God. Penal substitution lies at the heart of each of these biblical concepts. The doctrine of union with Christ ensures that cross does not amount to the legal fiction of guilt being arbitrarily transferred from sinners to the Son. Jesus died for his people, to whom he was united in the eternal purposes of God. The authors' defence of definite atonement gives strength to this argument.

The writers reflect on the pastoral implications of penal substitutionary atonement. Knowing that God sent his Son to bear the punishment of our sins assures us of the depth of his love for us. This also teaches us that God will always be true to his word. He said that sin always leads to death. The only way that we could be saved from death and condemnation was for Jesus to die in our place. God did not "bend the rules" to save us. By the cross, he saves in truth and justice. Knowing this should give us every confidence in God's promises and a passion for justice in God's world.

It is often argued that the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross stands at odds with the teaching of much of the Church throughout the centuries. This point is not decisive. What Scripture says is the thing that really matters. But a chapter on historical pedigree of penal substitution gives the lie to the oft repeated suggestion that the teaching was invented by Anselm, only to resurface in a modified form at the Reformation. A whole host of quotations is produced, spanning the the Patristic, Medieval, Reformation and Modern periods. Figures like Athanasius, Augustine and Calvin, as well as more recent evangelicals such as John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, all taught penal substitution in the clearest terms. We should think very carefully before abandoning this historic doctrine. So ends part one. A masterful case has been made for penal substitutionary atonement. But can that case withstand the many criticisms that have been levelled against the doctrine? Part two seeks to answer the critics.

Various objections are considered and responses given. Some argue that penal substitution is not really taught in the Bible, others that it sanctions "the myth of redemptive violence", and is unjust. It is said that the doctrine distorts our view of God, and undermines the Christian life. The writers take these criticisms seriously. They engage with their opponents fairly, firmly and with grace. Almost every conceivable objection to penal substitution is stated and then countered. Misunderstandings are cleared up and false aspersions challenged, while the clear biblical teaching is set forth. The structure of the book, where the constructive theology of part one is followed by the critical dialogue of part two, enables the reader to assess whether penal substitution is in fact grounded in the witness of Scripture. I'm sure than on reading Pierced for our Transgressions, you will agree that it certainly is!

When it comes to matters of substance, the writers have given us a clear, biblically grounded and theologically rich exposition of penal substitution. Here we encounter the triune God of the gospel. His just wrath is provoked by human sin. We deserve to be punished for transgressing his holy law. Yet in his love for us, God took our punishment upon himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus willingly offered himself to God as a propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of his people. In the cross we see God's justice and love working together harmoniously for the salvation of sinners. By his penal substitutionary death, Christ triumphed over Satan and redeemed the people of God from slavery to sin. Here is the ground of the believer's justification and the basis upon which God has reconciled the world to himself. The eschatological renewal of the cosmos is rooted in fact that on the cross, Christ was made a curse for us. In him, God's curse upon our fallen world is removed. In the many splendored cross, we see the glory of God displayed as never before.

I heartily commend this well-argued and compelling account of penal substitution. If you are sceptical about this doctrine, but have an open mind, then pick up this book and give it a fair hearing. If, like me you don't need convincing of this truth, then Pierced for our Transgressions will enrich your understanding of the cross. It will also equip you to refute many of the objections that are currently being raised against the teaching. An appendix gives preachers some valuable advice on avoiding unhelpful illustrations that will detract from the true meaning of the cross of Jesus. See here for dedicated website.

Read this book and rediscover the glory of penal substitution!

Volf on why the cross was not "cosmic child abuse"

Steve Chalke infamously wrote that the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is tantamount to,

‘child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed.’ (The Lost Message of Jesus, 2003, Zondervan, p. 182).

I don't know if Miroslav Volf had Chalke's words in mind, but in his book Free of Charge, he gives this response to such sentiments,

"God loves us and wants to spare us the burden of our sin, but Christ suffers because of it!? Is this fair? By "putting forward" the Son, as the apostle Paul wrote [Romans 3:25], isn't the Father abusing the Son? Doesn't substitution constitute another wrongdoing, this time against the innocent Christ? How can one wrongdoing heal another? Doesn't Christ's death on our behalf compound sins rather than take them away?

The Father would be abusing the Son and committing divine wrongdoing - rather than taking away human wrongdoing in Christ were a third party, beyond God who was wronged and humanity who wronged God. But he isn't He stands firmly on the divine side of the forgiving God, not between the forgiving God and forgiven humanity. "In Christ," wrote the apostle Paul, "God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses unto them" (2 Corinthians 5:19). Not: Christ was reconciling an angry God to a sinful world. Not: Christ was reconciling a sinful world to a loving God. Rather: God in Christ was "reconciling the world to himself".

What happened then when God "made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21)? The answer is simple: God placed human sin upon God! One God placed human sin upon another God? No, there are not two Gods. The God who is One beyond numbering and yet mysteriously Three reconciled us by shouldering our sin in the person of Christ who is one of the Three. That's the mystery of human redemption made possible by the mystery of God's Trinity: The One who was offended bears the burden of the offense."

From Free of Charge: giving and forgiving in a culture stripped of grace, Miroslav Volf, 2005, Zondervan, p. 144-145. I hope to post a review of this helpful and challenging book sometime next week.

Ten things on limited atonement

John Owen, author of The Death of Death in the Death of Christ

In a recent post, Defining Heresy, Chris Tilling reflected on David Bentley Hart's statement on 'the heresy of "limited atonement", which has so dreadfully disfigured certain streams of traditional Reformed thought' (The Doors of the Sea). Is limited atonement really a heresy? Here are some points to consider:

1. Universalists believe that Christ died for all and therefore all will be saved. I cannot argue the point now, but in my view this stance fails to take into account what the Bible says about the reality of hell for those who die in their sin (see here). Most other theological positions teach a form of limited atonement. For some, the cross is limited in its effectiveness because Christ died for all, but not all are saved. For others the cross is limited in its scope because Christ died only for the the elect, whose salvation he secured.

2. The biblical basis for limited atonement is found in texts that specify that Christ died for his people in particular. For example, in John 10, Jesus says "the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep" (vs. 11). The "sheep" are defined as those whom the Father gave to the good shepherd (vs. 29). These "sheep" will most certainly be saved, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish" (vs. 28). Christ makes a clear distinction between his "sheep" for whom he died and who will never perish and those who were not his "sheep", "But you do not believe because you are not my sheep" (vs. 26). Christ's "sheep" hear the voice of the good shepherd and follow him (vs. 27). Similarly, Paul wrote that "Christ loved the church and gave himself for her that he might sanctify and cleanse her by the washing of water by the word." (Ephesians 5:25 & 26). It is specifically for the church that Christ gave himself. His self-giving at the cross secures her sanctification and cleansing.

3. Denial of limited atonement undermines the link between Christ's substitutionary death and the salvation of the people of God. If Christ died for some who are not saved, then his death failed in its purpose. This is inconceivable. In him we have redemption through his blood (Ephesians 1:7). Those whom Christ has redeemed are saved by grace through faith (2:8) and therefore know forgiveness of sins according to the riches of God's grace (1:7). Limited atonement is better described as definite atonement because the cross actually and definitely achieved salvation for the people of God. Jesus died in the place of those whom the Father gave him in eternity. He bore their sins and took the punishment they deserved in his substitutionary death. Christ's cross did not make salvation a possibility for any who wished to be saved. He saved us by his blood. According to Jim Packer, "It is Calvinism that understands the Scriptures in their natural, one would have thought, inescapable meaning; Calvinism that keeps to what they actually say; Calvinism that insists on taking seriously the biblical assertions that God saves, and that he saves those whom he has chosen to save, and that he saves them by grace without works, so that no man may boast, and that Christ is given to them as a perfect Saviour, and that their whole salvation flows to them from the cross; and that the work of redeeming them was finished on the cross." (From an introductory essay to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, John Owen, Banner of Truth Trust, 1983. p. 9)

4. The believer's union with Christ demands a definite atonement. God's elect people were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). Christ came into this fallen world as man to save those who were united to him in God's electing grace. When he died, he died for us and by our union with him, we died with him to sin and condemnation. This becomes an existential reality when we are united to him by the Spirit. We are baptised into Christ's death. The old man (in Adam) is crucified and we are raised to new life in Christ. (Romans 6:1ff). Those who have been united to Christ must, "reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (vs. 11). Christ's cross achieved his people's death to sin so that all for whom he died will be united to him in his death and resurrection. In Romans 6, definite atonement is the dynamic of the Christian life of holiness. This focus on union with Christ ensures that the effectiveness of the cross does not rest upon man's response to the gospel. Yes, we must believe to be saved. But even the faith that receives salvation is given to us by God's Christ-mediated grace.

5. The commercial theory of the atonement - that Christ's suffering was proportionate to the number of people whom he redeemed is not the mainstream Reformed doctrine. To make this clear, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists added an explanatory statement to their 1823 Confession of Faith, "we think it necessary to call attention to the truth concerning the infinite sufficiency of the atonement... as it its it forth in the writings of Thomas Charles of Bala, 'None will perish because of insufficiency in the atonement, but all because they will not come to Christ to be saved; and these men will have not excuse for their neglect of Christ.'" (Article 18: Redemption, 2004 reprint, Heath Christian Trust).

6. Holding to definite atonement should not hinder the free offer of the gospel. Christ is to be preached as an all sufficient Saviour who saves all who trust in him. All sinners may be assured that by his blood, Christ is able to cleanse the foulest sinner and put them right with God. John Owen writes, "There is enough in the remedy it [the cross] brings to light to heal all their diseases, to deliver them from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, if so be they will derive virtue from him by touching him by faith; the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation." (The Death of Death op. cit. p. 185). God loves all people. Through the preaching of the gospel, God graciously offers Christ to all who will come to him for forgiveness and new life.

7. Biblical texts that teach Christ died for the "world" or for "all" do not contradict definite redemption. By the word "world", the Bible often draws attention not to human demography, but the sinfulness of mankind. Christ died for a sinful world. B. B. Warfield comments on the meaning "world" in John 3:16, "It is not here a term of extension so much as a term of intensity. Its primary connotation is ethical, and the point of its employment is not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the world is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it at all, and much more to love it as God has loved it when he gave his Son for it." (The Saviour of the World, Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, p. 120-121). John also wrote of Christ, "he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2). John draws attention to the ethical meaning of world in 2:15-17 of this letter. But in the text quoted, the apostle wanted to show that Christ did not die for a privileged minority among the people of God, but for a whole world of lost sinners. This does not necessarily mean that he died for all human beings inclusively. But that Christ was the propitiation for the whole world extensively - for all peoples in this fallen world. Those who hold to limited atonement should glory in such statements rather than be embarrassed by them. This is our message, "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world." (1 John 4:14).

8. Limited atonement does not necessarily mean that only a very limited number of people will be saved in comparison with those who will be lost. According to W. G. T. Shedd, "But when Christ shall have "seen of the travail of his soul" and been "satisfied" with what he has seen; when the whole course of the gospel shall be complete, and shall be surveyed from beginning to end; it will be found that God's elect, or church, is "a great multitude which no man can number, out of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues," and that their voice is as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, "Hallelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth," Rev. 7:9, 19:6." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, , p. 712).

9. Definite atonement provides a sure ground for the assurance of faith. There can be no doubt that those for whom Christ died will perish. His death has saved us. We can never be lost. An indefinite atonement cannot give believers this assurance, as not all for whom Christ died will be saved. God's elect can never be condemned because the Saviour has died in our place, "Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is risen, who is even at the right hand of God for us, who also makes intercession for us." (Romans 8:33-34).

10. If you have tended just to dismiss "limited atonement" as a Calvinistic aberration, or even a "heresy" and I have not convinced you otherwise, why not read a couple of classic books on the subject? The most in-depth work is John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, already referred to in the post. See also Redemption Accomplished and Applied, by John Murray, 1979, Banner of Truth Trust.

God Crucified, by Richard Bauckham

God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament,1998, Eerdmans, 79pp, by Richard Bauckham

In this gem of a book, Bauckham sketches out his proposal that New Testament Christology is best understood using the Hebrew concept of the divine identity rather than Greek notions of person, essence and nature. It is sometimes assumed that the sub-apostolic church developed a higher Christology than we find in the New Testament, because it is only from from Nicaea onwards that Christ was confessed as fully God - a divine person who was homoousion with the Father. Bauckham questions this assumption saying,

"I shall be arguing what will seem to anyone familiar with the study of New Testament Christology a surprising thesis: that the highest possible Christology, the inclusion of Jesus in the unique divine identity, was central to the faith of the early church even before any of the New testament writings were written, since it occurs in all of them." (p. 27).

The writer shows that when we set the New Testament's witness to Christ against background of Hebrew theological understanding, he was incorporated in the divine identify from the very beginning .

In the opening chapter, Understanding Early Jewish Monotheism, Bauckham lays the groundwork for the book's central argument. He notes that for Jewish monotheists, God had two defining attributes that set him apart from the false gods of the nations. Israel's God, YHWH was the creator and sovereign ruler of the universe. These characteristics separated God even from "intermediary figures" like angels or the great patriarchs. Unlike some, Bauckham does not see these "intermediary figures" as precedents for including Jesus in the divine identity. However, he notes that in both the Old Testament and Second Temple literature, God's Word and Wisdom are personified as part of the unique divine identity. These distinctions within the one God in Jewish theology made it possible for the church to include Jesus within the identity of YHWH without compromising strict, monotheistic beliefs.

In the next chapter, Christological Monotheism in the New Testament, Bauckham demonstrates how the early church included Jesus in YHWH's divine identity. First, by virtue of his exaltation, Jesus shares in God's sovereign rule. The New Testament writers creatively used Old Testament texts such as Psalm 110:1 to assert Jesus' sovereignty over all things. The exalted Jesus is even given 'the name above every name', (Philippians 2:9), which Bauckham argues is the very Tetragrammaton - YHWH. As the exalted Lord, Jesus is worthy of the worship and praise that belongs to God alone. Second, Jesus was included in the divine identity because he is described as the pre-existent creator. The writer draws particular attention to 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 at this point. In this text, Paul reworks the Jewish Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), to include Jesus in the identity of the one creator God. This "Christology of divine identity" takes us beyond the traditional distinctions between functional and ontic Christology. It is misleading to suggest that Christ could have shared in the "functions" of God's lordship and creative activity without being "ontically" divine. Creation and sovereignty are part of God's defining identity - he is Creator and Lord. Jesus is therefore "intrinsic to the unique identity of God." (p. 41).

Finally we come to God Crucified: The Divine Identity Revealed in Jesus. In this chapter, Bauckham attempts to demonstrate that it was not only as the pre-existent Creator, and exalted Lord that Jesus shared in the identity of God. Christ crucified also reveals who God is. The writer reflects on the New Testament's use of Isaiah 40-55 in relation to Jesus. Bauckham calls these chapters "Deutero-Isaiah" while recognising that early Christians would not have seen the middle section of Isaiah in that way. (I don't much care for the critical theories that question the unity of Isaiah, but I don't want to get into all that now). Bauckham is on surer ground when it comes to New Testament exegesis. His insight into the different nuances of Pauline and Johannine teaching is outstanding. He devotes special attention to the way in which Philippians 2:6-11, Revelation and John's Gospel draw upon themes and ideas in Isaiah 40-55. With great theological sensitivity, Bauckham teases out the Christological significance of the New Testament's use of these texts. Here, the God of Israel is revealed in the degradation and death of the Suffering Servant. In Jesus, God is identified as the crucified one.

There is both continuity and novelty in the New Testament's account of Israel's God,

"The radical novelty in Philippians 2 lies in the way in which God in Jesus Christ dwells in the depths, not only with but as the lowest of the low. God's characteristic exaltation of the lowest becomes a pattern in which he participates himself." (p. 74).

Bauckham reflects on the trinitarian aspects of his Christology of divine identity. The God of Israel is no unipersonal being. The divine identity is revealed in the intra-divine relationships between Father, Son and Spirit.

"The transition from the God of the patriarchs to YHWH the God of Israel is a kind of precedent for the transition from the latter to the God of Jesus Christ. Once again a new name identifies a newly disclosed identity, although this clearly only occurs in one New Testament text: Matthew 28:19."

"As the God who includes the humiliated and the exalted Jesus in his identity he is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is the Father of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Spirit of the Father given to the Son" (p. 76).

Where does all this this leave classic Nicean/Chaledonican orthodoxy? According to Bauckham, the Fathers did not so much develop New Testament Christology, but transpose it into the concepts of Greek philosophical categories of essence and nature. The purpose of homoousion was to safeguard Jesus' place within the divine identity. I think that the Nicean/Chaledonican tradition comes into its own is in providing precise answers to question such as, "What is the relationship between the three and the one within the divine identity?" and "What is the relationship between the divine and human in the incarnate Son of God?" The writer argues that the tradition was less successful when it comes to engaging with the New Testament's revelation of God's identity in the sufferings of Christ. It is not until Luther's theologia crucis that the church really began to seriously reflect on God crucified.

Bauckham acknowledges that he has but sketched an outline of his "Christology of divine identity" in this little book. But his constructive proposal has helped to throw fresh light on the New Testament's understanding on Jesus. His findings deserve to be taken into account by others working in the fields of Christology and the doctrine of the trinity. But more than that, Bauckham enables us to see anew that the glory is God is displayed most fully in the self-giving of the Son at Calvary.

In his highest work, redemption,
See His glory in a blaze;
Nor can angels ever mention
Aught that more of God displays.
(O What matchless condescension by William Gadsby)

Some good stuff

Don Carson recently said that the internet represents a "triumph of pooled ignorance". But there is some good stuff out there in blog-land. Check out these links:

Martin Downes talks to Tom Schreiner about penal substitutionary atonement:

In my place condemned he stood, here.

Paul Helm has published two new posts for July:

N.T. Wight's ordo salutis here.

Samuel Rutherford and the limits of toleration here.

Jim Packer revisits penal substitutionary atonement

"Throughout my 63 years as an evangelical believer, the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross of Christ has been a flashpoint of controversy and division among Protestants. It was so before my time, in the bitter parting of ways between conservative and liberal evangelicals in the Church of England, and between the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (now UCCF) and SCM in the student world. It remains so, as liberalism keeps reinventing itself and luring evangelicals away from their heritage. Since one’s belief about the atonement is bound up with one’s belief about the character of God, the terms of the gospel and the Christian’s inner life, the intensity of the debate is understandable. If one view is right, others are more or less wrong, and the definition of Christianity itself comes to be at stake."

See here for the rest of the well thought out and passionately argued article. Vintage JIP.

Ten things for Good Friday

1. The one who hung on the cross was the incarnate, sinless Son of God.
2. Christ's death is described using number of complementary models in the New Testament:
3. He redeemed us to God by his blood, paying the price of sin and setting us free.
4. Jesus' death was a propitiatory sacrifice that averted God's wrath from us.
5. Christ's death is the basis of our justification by faith.
6. By the cross, Jesus triumphed over sin, death and the devil.
7. The atonement was penal and substitutionary because Christ died for his people's sins.
8. Believers have been crucified with Christ. We must live as those who are dead to sin.
9. The death of Christ did not merely make salvation possible. We are saved by his blood.
10. The atoning death of Jesus is the greatest demonstration of the love of God.