Monthly Archives: April 2007

Quickie observations on exile, death, curse, punishment, and resurrection

  1. God told Adam and Eve that the day they disobeyed in the garden they would die.
  2. The day Adam and Eve disobeyed they did not literally die, they were exiled from the Garden.
  3. When God formed Israel out of Egypt into a nation he had them build what was obviously a symbolic garden.
  4. When Israel sinned, by going after other gods, they were sent into exile and the garden/temple was destroyed
  5. Being brought back into the Land from exile was prophesied as resurrection from death (Isaiah 26; Ezekiel 37)
  6. When Jesus was condemned, it was to die under the domination of a foreign power; even the tomb was marked out as foreign territory by the imperial seal.  Though in Jerusalem, Jesus death and burial were plainly exile.
  7. There is no exegetically responsible way to deny that the sentence imposed by God in the Garden (Genesis 3) or the exile of Israel from the Land was anything less than a punshment for sin.
  8. The return from exile is a revelation of the forgiveness of sins (Isaiah 40).
  9. Jesus undergoing “exile” cannot be played off against Jesus suffering the penalty that we deserved.
  10. Jesus’ condemnation and death were punishment for sin–this is not some “model” of anything.  It is not a Roman or Feudal culture imposed on anything.  It is the truth.
  11. Incidentally, Christus Victor is also true.  So what?  It contradicts nothing in 1-10.

The objectivity of teaching

We are seeing some analysis of Wright that is every bit as amazing as Wright’s defense of Chalke. Just to point out the obvious, the fact that Wright has a long track record of teaching a vicarious penal substitutionary atonement is not a question that is dependent on anything he said in the last week. He may have apostatized (I don’t believe it, but it is logically possible) and he may not privately believe what he teaches publicly (don’t believe that either), but the question of his public teaching is to be settled by his public teaching. And for years thousands of readers (many of whom, like me, probably only recently heard the name “Chalke” and have read nothing by him) have learned that Christ died under the judicial wrath of God that we deserved so that for us who entrust ourselve to him there is now no condemnation.

Related posts:

Finally, I will point out the interesting fact that the defenders of penal substitution in replying to N. T. Wright, never implied nor hinted that he did not believe the orthodox position. If they are the great defenders of orthodoxy which Wright’s critics claim they are (and which I agree they are) then maybe we could all follow their example? Does it make sense to side with them and then attack Wright as a false teacher? Isn’t such an attack an implicit claim that the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions have compromised the doctrine they are supposed to be defending? If Wright is such a notorious false teacher, then why didn’t they ever warn us…?

To repeat the main point here: Wright’s record as a teacher is a public fact not a subjective impression. He can start a new record if he wants, or he can teach things he doesn’t believe, but what he has taught is outside of his or anyone else’s control. It is simply there. He has taught the penal substitutionary view as clearly as anyone.

Wright & Propitiation

I don’t have much more time for this, but statements like this:

Wright claims to “strongly” affirm penal substation, but he never says that Christ satisfies the just wrath of God against sin.

call me out.

Thankfully, the issue has already been answered (pdf download / blog excerpt here):

When speaking of “the wrath of God” on Jesus at the cross, Wright turns to the Gethsemane narrative, and specifically Jesus’ use of the “cup” terminology from the Old Testament. Since, in the prophetic writings, the “cup” refers to God’s wrath, Wright believes it is historically sound to affirm that Jesus was referring to God’s wrath when He willingly faced the cross, in order to drink of the cup [N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, 87]. Nowhere does Wright articulate the idea of the “cup” more powerfully than in his Matthew commentary:

The Old Testament prophets speak darkly about the “cup of YHWH’s wrath.” These passages talk of what happens when the one God, grieving over the awful wickedness of the world, steps in at last to give the violent and bloodthirsty, the arrogant and oppressors, the reward for their ways and deeds. It’s as though God’s holy anger against such people is turned into wine: dark, sour wine which will make them drunk and helpless. They will be forced to “drink the cup,” to drain to the dregs the wrath of the God who loves and vindicates the weak and helpless. The shock of this passage… is that Jesus speaks of drinking this cup himself [pp. 60, 61].

Notice how Wright maintains the “cup of wrath” in historical context. This is the way he avoids the picture of God as a tyrant taking out His vengeance on His Son for others’ mistakes. Wright sees the wrath of God in historical events. “Jesus takes the wrath of Rome (which is…the historical embodiment of the wrath of God) upon himself…” [“Jesus, Israel, and the Cross” SBL 1985 Seminar Papers edited by K.H. Richards (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), 75-95.] In fact, God has set Jesus forth as a hilasterion (propitiation) [Paul, 120].

It is because Jesus took upon Himself the wrath of God in order to shield His people that He uttered His cry of God‐forsakenness on the cross. In that moment in which Jesus was most fully embodying God’s love, He found Himself cut off and separated from that love [The Crown and the Fire, 44]. Furthermore, Jesus’ taking upon Himself the wrath of God against sin (through the Roman crucifixion) frees us from sin and guilt.

Jesus, the innocent one, was drawing on to himself the holy wrath of God against human sin in general, so that human sinners like you and me can find, as we look at the cross, that the load of sin and guilt we have been carrying is taken away from us. Jesus takes it on himself, and somehow absorbs it, so that when we look back there is nothing there. Our sins have been dealt with, and we need never carry their burden again [Ibid, 48-49].

Again and again, Wright affirms the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. Theologians may quibble with him for not putting this at the center of his atonement theology; others may chide him for not speaking of it more often. But no one who has read Wright fairly can charge him of denying this doctrine. I close this section with a paragraph from one of Wright’s early works, which he has since affirmed in other ways in later writings:

On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually… Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished [Small Faith, Great God, 49-50].

None of this will surprise anyone well-read in Wright. And while it looks like his defense of Chalke is simply wrong, his defense does show t hat he himself is clearly on the side of the penal subsitutionary view.

I could go downstairs and quote further from his commentary on Romans, or take dicatation from his lectures, but why spend the effort on an impossible quest? Wright is the enemy and those who defend him are the enemy also. There is nothing more to think about.

Neo-orthodox Presbyterians?

Whether accurate or not (I’ve never read Barth) it is an Evangelical “absolute truth” that neo-orthodoxy separates the Word of God from the Bible. For an Evangelical, believing the Bible means believing God. For a “neo-orthodox” advocate, this could almost be called idolatry.

As someone who has read a lot of material from the Founding of Westminster Theological Seminary, at the time of the big war in the Northern Presbyterian Church, I remember reading a great deal of material aimed at showing that the New Testament writers held the view of Scripture that is found among Evangelicals. This was often almost funny to me because it seemed so easy to prove; Warfield, Murray, and others were shooting fish in a barrel.

But now, it is like a whole new form of neo-orthodoxy has grabbed hold of the Evangelical world. If your pastor tells you in Church,

God sent His Son to die for you and for His sake forgives you all your sins; this I declare to you in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

and you believe him, some will now tell you that you are guilty of trusting in your pastor rather than trusting in God.

This is pretty insane and dangerous. Has God or has he not revealed himself in history? Did God or did he not establish the Church and the Gospel ministry?

What about those who “believe” their pastor but later apostasize and end up dying in their sins? Well, obviously, they didn’t truly believe the Gospel. We say this all the time about professing Christians who fall away. So why does that explanation suddenly fail? This is the gratuitous move: Instead of encouraging people to truly believe in Christ as he is offered in the Gospel, people are now insisting that the problem is that they do believe what their pastor tells them. What rationale is there for making this move? If these same people tell us that the reason professing Christians fail to inherit eternal life is that they have (in some way) failed to believe the Gospel, then why not say the same for the Gospel as declared through a Gospel minister? Or baptism? Or the Lord’s Supper? Why should anyone agree that “There are many in Hell who trusted that they were saved in their baptism”? Why not simply say in complete consistency with Presbyterian rubrics: “There are many in Hell who never truly trusted God that they were saved in their baptism”?

To insist that the failure to believe the Gospel was caused by their trust in their pastors words to them is really to attack the New Testament teaching. For there we find Paul insisting that those he writes to “those sanctified in Christ Jesus” (First Corinthians 1.2), that they are each members of the body of Christ (First Corinthians 12.12, 27), that they are among those for whom Christ “gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age (Galatians 1.4), that they are among those whom God “has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1.3, 4), etc. Paul orders Christians not to destroy those for whom Christ died (Romans 14, First Corinthians 8 In context he is obviously not saying we should go ahead and destroy those Chritians for whom Christ did not really die. Rather, he is mandating behavior that we should show toward all professing Christians.

So, did people in the church of Ephesus go to Hell because they were guilty of believing Paul rather than God? Or because they refused, in the final analysis, to believe what Paul said?

God works through means. How did Quakerism become Presbyterian?

The post where I act like a neocon, being brave from a distance

This post was marginal to begin with, but now I am confident it has no bearing on the Virginia Tech matter.  I leave it up only because I think the issues are important.  They just don’t have relevance to the event. 

OK, I’ve not said much about Virginia Tech. There is a reason. For the last few days I have wanted to say something that might judge other people who have been in insane circumstances that I have never endured. I don’t know what happened. I pray God that I am never in those circumstances. It may be that my worries are completely baseless in this case.

But the question has been haunting me. Even though I may some day prove to be nothing but a huge hypocrite, I have to ask it.

How does one man with two handguns get to kill whom he pleases and then choose his own time and manner of death?

I know that I am talking about something I know nothing about. Then again, I’m raising boys (sexist comment, I know. I’m unrepentant, though I’d be happy if my daughters take out a psychopath creep some day; but this is about being unarmed, so I’m stressing the male sex). I want to raise boys who take action when necessary and are willing to risk their lives for others. And, with that in mind, it is pretty much impossible not to aske the question.

I would never have articulated it if I hadn’t seen Mark Steyn’s piece.

The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.
We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

Now that I’ve thought about it more, maybe I can put it this way, as much as I don’t want to sound arrogant or boastful about deeds I have never attempted and facing fears I have never encountered, even more I don’t want to prepare myself and anyone I might influence for passivity and perhaps even cowardice. OK?

Of course, I’m speaking of the courage to rush an armed man while unarmed. I’d prefer a society where we were permitted tools that allowed us to get by with a little less courage. Rick Capezza led me to this article:

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

Do I love everything about that article. Obviously not. These are the opinions of Ted Nugent, after all. Why couldn’t Ronnie James Dio or Bruce Dickinson have penned them?

But getting back to courage, we need it. We need to honor it. If my sons were drafted into some overseas war and were killed, I know how I would feel about that human sacrifice. If they laid down their lives for friends, I would be proud of them. It seems like everything in our culture is bent on discouraging such values.

This surprises me more than when the Berlin Wall came down…

Dr. Michael Scott Horton writes:  “[N. T.] Wright… does not deny imputation.

And all this time I doubted God’s providence and justice, doubted I would ever be vindicated in this life.  Shame on me.

Oh, here’s the full quotation.  It is a parenthetical remark:  “Interestingly, even Wright is unwilling to go quite that far [as others allegedly do]: he does not deny imputation; he just does not see it as the point of logizomai in Paul.”

God is good!

Isaiah 61.1 prophesies YOU, Christian

I’ve got the ESV blog on my reader because it sometimes leads to neat places. Today, it announced more Bibleforlife promos. Because it caught my eye (due to local associations) I couldn’t resist listening to the “Barlow Girl” promo on Isaiah 61 (is that a music group or something? I have no idea).

It was breathtaking. How many Reformed seminary students would dare use Isaiah 61.1 as a description of the calling of all Christians, when it is put to “other” use by Jesus? Who would dare claim to be the object of a Messianic prophecy?

Well, maybe, making “everything point to Christ” is really only a job half-done when speaking of faithful Biblical hermeneutics! Here’s Jesus interpreting a passage of Scripture:

Only hold fast what you have until I come. The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.

Here’s my conclusion, if Jesus Himself says that Psalm 2 is a prophecy about us, as well as about him, then this great stuff about the Christian calling as found in Isaiah 61 is pretty far beyond criticism.