The mechanics of the cross
Monday, 27 June, 2005
After watching The Passion of the Christ last year, reading Ben's review of it and his follow-up article on the over-emphasis of penal substitutionary atonement, I recall being completely confused. I was confused about the cross and how it saves us. I was confused about the logic of 2 Ways to Live. I was confused about a lot of things but perhaps 2 Ways to Live is a good starting point.
You can read the 2 Ways to Live presentation by following this link. The way it is presented on screen is different to the way I think about or the way that I lay it out when I do the presentation with people. I normally do the table thing that looks something like this (sorry, no pics—can't be bothered scanning them in and my crowns always look sloppy):
1God is the loving ruler of the world. He made the world. He made us rulers of the world under him. (Revelation 4:11) But is that the way it is now? |
|
2We all reject the ruler—God—by trying to run life our own way without him. But we fail to rule ourselves or society or the world. (Romans 3:10-12) What will God do about this rebellion? |
4Because of his love, God sent his son into the world: the man Jesus Christ. Jesus always lived under God's rule. Yet by dying in our place, he took our punishment and brought forgiveness (1 Peter 3:18) But that's not all ... |
3God won't let us rebel forever. God's punishment for our rebellion is death and judgement. (Hebrews 9:27) God's justice sounds hard. But ... |
5God raised Jesus to life again as the ruler of the world. Jesus has conquered death, now gives new life, and will return to judge. (1 Peter 1:3) Well, where does that leave us? |
6The two ways to live: |
|
Our way:
Result:
|
God's new way:
Result:
|
(John 3:36) Which of these represents the way you want to live? |
|
The thing that has always confused me is that Box 4 says that the punishment for sin is death and judgement and then Box 5 says that Jesus takes both upon himself for our sake but, if that is the case, why do we still die? (I think I know the answer to the death one now.) Why do we still face the Judgement Day? (I'm not 100% sure on this one.)
But I think now my problem is I am trying to understand too much about the mechanics of the cross. Last week in Doctrine 1 John Woodhouse finished off his lecture on The Atonement and spent a lot of time dwelling on the subject of penal substitutionary atonement—the idea that Jesus was punished in our place on our behalf to make amends for our sins. John pointed out how much this doctrine has been debated and defended by giving us a taste of the opposing sides.
- Some do not like the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement because they think it is unfair: how could a just God punish the innocent (Jesus) in place of the guilty? That's not justice; that's injustice!
- Some do not like the idea of a God being angry at sin because God is a God of love and he could not possibly be angry enough at anyone to condemn them to hell.
- Some have issues with the fact that our guilt is somehow transferred onto Jesus and they say they can't be possible. They also have an issue with the mathematics: how can the life of one man (even if he is God) atone for the lives of millions of sinners? It doesn't add up.
John answered the objections:
- Substituting the innocent in place of the guilty is only just if it's God doing the substituting. He didn't take some (hypothetical) innocent person and punish them in place of the guilty; he took the punishment upon himself.
- God is angry at sin because God is holy. His holiness necessarily results in his justice—he must put things to rights. He is the only one equipped to do this job because he is the only one who is perfect, who knows everything and who can judge justly. We must not forget that we have all rebelled against God (Box 3) and are deserving of his wrath and condemnation.
- That one man can die as a “ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) is just something we have to accept; we don't understand how it works and we probably won't understand how it works until we get to heaven. Ditto the problem of transferring guilt.
What I am trying to say (in my very convoluted way which tries to tie on all the thoughts I have around the subject) is that it is okay if you do not completely 100% understand the cross. John said this last week and it made me feel a lot better about thinking myself sub-Christian because I didn't really get how it works. I suppose the cross is a bit like the Trinity; we're told that God is three persons in one and we don't understand how or why it is possible but we're simply told that this is true. Similarly, we are given insights into the cross and its various aspects—Christ's blood being an atoning sacrifice which covers over our sins like the Old Testament sacrificial system (Hebrews); Jesus died as a “ransom for many” (Mark 10:45); Jesus was a propitiation for our sins (ie. he turned aside God's wrath that should have rightly fallen on us: Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10), etc. but despite all these little glimmers, we don't get a sense of the whole—how it is possible that one man's blood should atone for many and that he should die as a ransom for many; how it is possible that one man, God in flesh, should turn aside the wrath of God onto himself (or even what that means; people tell me that death and judgement are the same but I don't understand how they are if we are to face God after death at the judgement seat), etc.
Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe in penal substitutionary atonement. I am glad that Jesus died for my sins and rose again for my justification. I am thankful for this gift of God's grace, even if I don't completely understand it. I'm just saying that it's okay I don't completely understand it and I don't think sermons should be attempting to explain it all when they can't.
In conclusion I would like to say a few things which I do not think are true with regards to penal substitutionary atonement:
- Christ's suffering does not save us. In many sermons I've heard, people make a big deal out of the fact that he was flogged, the nails went through his hands, he was asphyxiated, etc. In Hebrews 5:8 we learn that through his suffering he learned obedience. Hebrews 2:18 tells that, because he suffered while being tempted, he is able to help us too who suffer while being tempted. But his suffering does not atone for our sin.
- Neither does spending three days in hell (which isn't true). I don't think Jesus went to hell for three days—to my knowledge there is little in the Bible that supports that view apart from that obscure passage in 1 Peter 3:18-22 but I don't think that Peter is talking about hell there; I think he's talking about Jesus preaching his victory to the Nephilim/Sons of God/fallen angels from Genesis 6:4 who intermarried with the daughters of men and were imprisoned in 2 Peter 2:4. What happened in those three days between Jesus' death and resurrection? I don't really know but the important thing is that Jesus was dead. He really did die. He didn't just pass out and then revive again in the tomb. He was dead and he was buried and then, after three days, God raised him from the dead.
- Jesus' death alone saves us. Why do we feel that we need to add to it? Is it too simple or too complicated for us that our preachers often feel the need to elaborate (perhaps motivated by some morbid fascination with the Roman practice of crucifixion)? The Bible doesn't dwell on the details; why should we?
- Even though the Bible doesn't dwell on the details of Jesus' death and sacrifice (apart to say that he died and that his death was a sacrifice), the Bible speaks a lot about the results of Jesus' death—justification (Romans 3:23-24; 5:9); eternal life (John 3:36; Rom 6:22-23); the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13—wow, just look at the rest of the things in Ephesians 1!); reconciliation with God (Rom 5:10); freedom from slavery to sin (Rom 6:17-18); glory (2 Thess 2:14); and, of course, adoption (Galatians 3:26). We don't know how Jesus' death achieves these things for us but what matters is that they do.
Blinks:
A way of funding writing in the future: pitch and idea and get people to support it.
Place where you can hire play equipment for parties, etc.
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
Interesting.
One point (actually, probably several):
The Nephilim are not fallen angels. Genesis 6 makes a distinction between the godly line of Seth (“the sons of God”) and the wicked (everyone else, represented in the marriage example as the “daughters of man”.) The Nephilim are their offspring; they sound like hero figures (“giants”) but the text doesn’t make them sound anything other than human. There is no mention of angels or spirits in Genesis 6. And why would angels, fallen or otherwise, need to be preached to? All the demons that Jesus came into contact with seemed to know who he was and acknowledged his authority. In 1 Peter 3:18-22 (which I do not find obscure), the “spirits” sound like all the wicked who died during the flood, and the “prison” is Sheol (which may indeed by hell).
I’ve never heard anyone assert that Jesus spent three days in hell; he died on the Friday and rose on the Sunday, and that would make a bit over one day, if he did so. To split a hair. But why do you think the “descended into hell” part of many creeds (which I think is what you mean) “isn’t true”? Do explain this.
And a question:
Given what you’ve stated, what do you think the Apostles’ Creed means when it says “and He descended to the dead”?
The resurrection and justification are indeed a great and beautiful mystery (some things are too high for us), but I do consider that scripture is clearer on these other, subsidiary points than you have argued.
Upon reflection, and a little research, I think 1 Peter 3:18-22 might be talking about the Spirit of Christ preaching through Noah to the wicked at the time of the flood. (O dear I very nearly was a dispensationalist.) And the “descended to” phrase might be an outdated (though memorable) idiom for “dead”. “Descended to the dead” = sheol = normal place of departed human souls, therefore emphasising that Jesus was indeed dead. I just answered some of my own questions. Apologies, sister. But I’ll stand by my first point, about the Nephilim & co., and my last paragraph.
Thanks for this one Karen.
I think that we evangelicals have this extreme ‘need’ to understand everything. We must completely understand how God atones for our sins - we just can’t cope with the idea that “it’s a mystery”. But it is.
I think I’d be a little worried if I could understand all of God’s ways.
Full points for John Woodhouse “admitting” that this is just one more thing about God that we cannot comprehend completely.
daniel
Deb: see your blog for an answer to the hell question. I will have to keep thinking about the Nephilim/Noah thing. But I think that the line of interpretation you’re following begs a lot of questions. If the spirits in prison were the wicked from the time of Noah, why did Jesus go preach to them? Why them as opposed to anyone else in the whole of Old Testament history? And what did he preach?
If it’s the angels (which is my theory), Jesus was preaching the news of his victory in his death on the cross. It’s not to give them a second chance at redemption but to declare to him that he has won (and they have lost). The angel link seems to me to be highly plausible because of the link to 2 Peter where Noah and things imprisoned are also mentioned.
This, however, is just one theory out of many. We had a look at 1 Peter 3:18-22 last year in staff meeting and looked at the various options (including the Tony Payne option) and, after thinking about it for a long time, that was the view that I thought worked best with the material.
Hello Karen, you needn’t refer me to my own blog!
I assume the 2 Peter passage you refer to is 2 Peter 2:4? Because that verse seems to me to be, in context, part of a long list of things proving God’s steadfast application of justice, evidencing his holiness and his protection of his righteous ones. In my ESV, it’s only the first part of a single sentence that extends to verse 10. God locking up the fallen angels and his flooding of the world are treated as separate events, like Sodom/Gommorah and Lot. I don’t see a necessary connection between that and the 1 Peter 3 passage that we have been referring to.
That passage seems to refer to a spate of disobedience immediately before the flood, whereas the usual take on the “fallen angels” thing is that that happened long long before.
Okay, why them. Because they were a wholly wicked generation. See the arrogance of Lamech in Gen 4:23-25. And God’s sorrow in 6:5-6. The message would have been one of their disobedience and their need to repent and joyfully submit to God’s rule (gospel). They needed this message to be preached to them because there seem to be no prophets in during this period.
This would not have been necessary in the post-Mosaic era of the OT because the people had the revelation of the Law, to declare to them at least their disobedience. They also had, at times, the prophets. Previous to that they had the patriarchs and before that Noah (Genesis has only genealogies and the Tower of Babel between Noah and Abraham), and I think all these men are referred to as prophets in the New Testament.
Also, what is meant by “preach”, do you think? I can’t imagine what is usually denoted by this word as being applicable to angels. All encounters with angels throughout scripture tend to indicate that they know exactly what is going on. The evil spirits that responded to Jesus already recognised and submitted to his authority.
Perhaps I should say, this line of interpretation, including the take on the Nephilim (an automatically unhelpful word), is not one I came up with on my own (I shan’t flatter myself), but is the one taken and preached to me by a number of reliable, godly pastors from my home denomination. This is not to back myself up, but to prove at least I’m not heading up a garden path I paved myself.
I put in the reference to your blog in case any one else was reading and wanted to know why I hadn’t answered your question.
Will respond to your other points post-OT1-essay.