Chapter 2 draft 1

This is a Wordle image of the second chapter of my book, which I wanted to share with you:

"Make the cross your theology, and test everything by it" - Mike Reeves

Firstly, Revd. Dr. Mike Reeves (UCCF theology advisor, and probably the best bible teacher I've ever heard) has given three excellent talks on the cross, which I've found online would warmly commend to anyone - especially the first and last one, although the middle one isn't bad.

Secondly, Dave Bish has posted two interesting posts on the dangers of emotionalism and dry intellectualism, and the relation of each of them to actually living a life of faith. Well worth a read.

But the main thing I wanted to post on was the cross, as you might guess from the title. I had an interesting conversation the other friday with (name), (name), and (name), about Steve Chalke and penal substitution. I don't actually remember much of what the conversation was about - it was in a very loud place. However, it has made me think a lot recently, as I've realised I've been reading far too little on the subject past few months, so I've started trying to correct that.

That, combined with the fact that it is good friday, have reminded me that I have not updated this blog for ages, even for "Cross Friday". Initially that was because my computer became all broken and busted - since then it is simply because I have largely forgotten.

Anyway, I figured good friday might be a good day to buck the trend.

Just the quote in the title makes me think. For example, one particular thing I've been thinking about - I just heard that I've been accepted onto a Christian internship in parliament, and I am thinking - what does the cross say to my political views? (This article raises some interesting questions on evangelical christian politics, well worth reading.)

So basically, that post said very little, but managed to link to lots of good stuff. Which is nice.

Cross Friday - Justificiation

Apologies once more for the lateness of this post - I fear this may become a running pattern. One of the downsides of knowing people is that they sometimes wish to do things with you on fridays, leading to this being postponed. I met up with old housemates last friday and this got postponed in the process.

This week I wanted to have a little think about justification. No doubt most, if not all, of my readers, will be familiar with the idea that Jesus was justly punished in our place, for our sins, so that God could be both just in dealing with our sins properly, and also merciful in not holding us accountable for our sins. I expect that in a future week I'll look at that properly, and respond to a few of the more obvious objections.

But one outcome of this is part of justification. Justification is often described as God treating us "just as if I never sinned" - the beggining of that phrase being similar to the beginning of "justification." It's God's forgiveness of our sins and treating us as if they were not there.

This is gloriously true, but it's not the whole truth. The greek "justify" is literally a verb form of "righteous", meaning something like "righteousify", i.e. "declare righteous" or "make righteous". In our culture, "righteous" sounds a bit stuck up - perhaps "declare to be good" or "make morally good" gives us a better feel of what it should "feel" like. But the basic point is this - "justify" means not just "forget about the sins", but also "treat you like you've done something".

The bible is clear that in our baptism, we are baptised into Jesus' death and resurrection. As a result of this - we're drawn into the relationship within the heart of God. We share in Christ's death, and thus our punishment is taken and our sins forgiven. But what's more than this - we share in Christ's obedience to death - as well as his other righteous acts - and thus we share in Christ's positive righteousness, and the new life which comes through his resurrection.

That fact makes me realise one thing - it should excite me a whole lot more than it actually does.

Cross Friday - Packer on Penal Substitution as a "model"

In What did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution, J.I. Packer's magisterial lecture/booklet on Penal Substitution (the doctrine that Jesus died for our sins), Packer says the following about penal substitution as a model ("model", for Packer, is something that communicates truth about God - but remembers that it cannot communicate the whole truth - and which Packer states is basically the only way we can talk about any aspect of God):

It will by now be clear that those who affirm penal substitution offer this model not as an explanatory analysis of what lay 'behind' Christ's atoning death in the way that the laws of heat provide an explanatory analysis of what lies 'behind' the boiling of a kettle, but rather as a pointer directing attention to various fundamental features of the mystery - that is, according to our earlier definition, the transcendent and not-wholly-comprehensible divine reality - of Christ's atoning death itself, as the New Testament writers declare it. Most prominent among these features are the mysterious divine love which was its source, and of which it is the measure (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:8-10; John 15:13); the mysterious necessity for it, evident from Paul's witness in Romans 8:32 that God did not spare his Son, but gave him up to death for us, which shows that, he being he, he could not have saved us at any less cost to himself; the mysterious solidarity in virtue of which Christ could be 'made sin' by the imputing to him of our answerability, and could die for our sins in our place, and we could be 'made righteous' before God through faith by the virtue of his obedience (cf. Rom. 5:17-19, 3 Cor 5:21 [sic]); and the mysterious mode of union whereby, without any diminution of our individuality as persons, or his, Christ and we are 'in' each other in such a sense that already we have passed with him through death into risen life. Recognition of these mysteries causes no embarrassment, nor need it; sicne the cross is undeniably central in the New Testament witness to God's work, it was only to be expected that more dimensions of mystery would be found clustered here than anywhere. (Indeed, there are more than we listed; for a full statement, the tri-unity of the loving God, the incarnation itself, and God's predestining the free acts of his enemies, would also have to come in.) To the question, what does the cross mean in God's plan for man's good, a biblical answer is ready to hand, but when we ask how these things can be we find ourself facing mystery at every point.

An interesting quote - and one which I want to think more about. Anyone agree/disagree and want to give reasons?

(Also, note that due to taking too long this post is not on late friday night, but very early on saturday!)

The Cross displays God's Humility

I was quite busy on Friday with my parents coming up and other stuff that perhaps I will blog about later when I feel more like it, so I didn't post this then. However, it had been ready. I want to look at the supreme humility of Jesus revealed on the cross, and begin to look at some of its implications.

At the cross, we see the supreme humility of Jesus. Philippians 2:5-8 shows us the enormous humility that Jesus showed in going to the cross. In order to save us from our sins, He abandoned His rightful glory in heaven, and became a human being. In becoming human, He accepted all that that means, and died - and died in one of the most humiliating ways imaginable. For a greek, crucifixion was terrible because it was something that only serious criminals had to face (and even then, not always, e.g. Roman citizens were exempt). For a Jew, it was even worse, because the Old Testament says that someone who hangs on a tree is cursed by God (which Jesus was - as no doubt we'll explore in the future).

The cross displays Jesus' humility. Of that I have no doubt. This means a number of things.

1. Jesus places our good above his dignity. Philippians 2:5-8, where Jesus humbles himself by becoming man and going to the cross, is used to show that we should share the mind of Jesus. In what respect should we share the mind of Jesus? In that we should "do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Philippians 2:3-4)
2. Jesus states in John that he does not seek his own glory (John 8:50). The cross is the most visible example of this. Jesus shows that He loves us and His father above his comfort and glory.
   
3. Equally, though (and here is an awesome paradox), while the cross is the place where Jesus' humility and lack of concern for His glory is most shown, it is also the place where His glory - the greatness of who He is - is most profoundly shown (at least for those who God has revealed it to.) We read this in John 17:1, where Jesus prays that as his hour (of crucifixion) comes, God would glorify Him. This would appear to contradict the above point, were it not for the fact that Jesus goes on to explain that this is only so that "the Son may glorify you", the Father. Jesus does not seek His glory for its own sake, but He does seek it out of love for the Father.
4. This has interesting consequences for our understanding of the glory-seeking of God the Father. The role of the Son is to reveal the Father, and we can know nothing of Him without looking through the Son. The Son is the exact imprint of the Father's nature (Hebrews 1:3), so presumably the Father is like the Son in this respect. However, scripture refers to the Father seeking His own glory. The Father could do so for any number of reasons, of which I can see two which seem to both be at least part of the truth, together.
1. One reason could be that He seeks the good of the church, and this is true, but cannot be the whole truth, as (for example) Ezekiel 36 contains statements that God does things not for the sake of Israel, but for the sake of His name - ie his glory.
   
2. Another could be that he is seeking the Son's glory out of love - this is certainly part of the reason, and is certainly true, and is my preferred main explanation for this. I'll blog later on exactly how strongly we can biblically talk about it, as I would like to comment on this post and subsequent discussion - and hopefully will do at some point. Am, however, unusually busy at the minute. One thing I would say, though, is that it is clear both that the Father seeks the glory of the Son (e.g. John 8:50), and that the structure of trinitarian relationships with the world mean that we cannot glorify the Son other than by glorifying the Father through the Son - we can't really do it in any other way.
   
5. One thing that is clear, though, is that whatever reason there is for the Father seeking His own glory, it is compatible with His fundamental humilty and love. The Father is reflected fully, wholly, and gloriously in the Son - and therefore is like Him in His humility and love.
   

By the way, I am trying to make my blogposts sound less like theological treatises. Although I often think about these topics a lot before I write them, I don't edit them so thoroughly that I'd want them to be seen as of the quality of theological treatises. I'd also like them to be readable - unlike far too many theological tomes.