In My Place, Condemned He Stood

Well, yesterday’s Bible study was about John 9-10, and we had a great time discussing topics like the legitimacy of Christianity and illumination (that is, Jesus shining in our hearts as the “light of the world”, John 8:12; 9:5). However, we didn't get to the idea of substitution, that Christ died for the “sheep” (John 10:11, 15).

This opens up the question of the meaning of Christ’s death; why did he die? What did his death actually achieve?

The technical term when describing what the cross was all about is penal substitution (penal means “relates to punishment”). This view, which was formally established by the reformers of the sixteenth century, states that Christ, in his death, took the place of sinners, assuaging the wrath of God toward them (a process called ‘propitiation’) by which God makes them righteous in his sight ( a process known as ‘justification), and redeeming them from the slave-market of sin (known as ‘redemption’).[i]

God, as judge of the universe, is infinitely holy and has wrath against all those who break his law. This wrath, which is focused on sinners directly (John 3:36; Rom. 2:8), could not be lessened by any sacrifice which humans could give (Heb. 10:4). So God, in love (John 3:16), sent his Son to make right the relationship which had been marred by sin (Isaiah 59:2), taking the full punishment that was due them on the cross (Isaiah 53:4-6). Thus, by Christ’s death, the wrath of God was pacified, and now he can justify (or, ‘make righteous in his sight’) all who believe in Christ (see Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 2:14-16). Christ, in this action, redeemed his people from the slave market of sin (see Rom. 6:5-8; 8:1-3), paying the full penalty for all their sins, past and present (Heb. 10:11-14). The effects of Christ’s death are now mediated through faith, so that “whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16b; cf. Rom. 3:21-25).

So that’s what we mean when we talk about substitution. It’s the reality that “in my place, condemned he stood,” as the hymn goes. That Jesus died when I should have, and suffered all the punishment that should have been mine. The good shepherd died “for” his sheep.

Feel free to post your questions and thoughts,

God bless,

Casey D.

---

[i] Taken from James M. Boice, “the Nature of the Atonement: Propitiation” in Atonement (Phillipsburg, P&R Publishing, 2010), pgs. 33-34. 

The Gospel of John: John 9-10

This coming Sunday we are going to be discussing one of the most well known passages in the New Testament: The good shepherd discourse. This passage (comprising of most of chapter 10), and those surrounding it begin to reveal with great vigor who Jesus really is, and hold some of the most foundational texts for the doctrine of the Atonement and the Trinity. 

As you read through the passage, think about some of these things:

1. What makes Christianity special? What does it have to offer which no other religion can? 
2. In what ways has Christ make you see things to which you were previously blinded? How has this influenced your spiritual walk? 
3. What is the importance of Jesus laying down his life for the sheep (10:11,15)? 

I look forward to studying with you, and pray that Christ would reveal the truth of this passage to your heart.

God bless your weekend, 

Casey D. 

The Gospel of John: John 6

This next Sunday we're going to be studying through John 6, dealing with concepts such as the Father's role in salvation and the reasons for belief.  

I know as I have studied this week I have found this passage a gold mine, and my pick-ax of a brain cannot even hope to reach it's deepest treasures. Nevertheless, there are some really interesting issues which this passage presents us with that I hope will garner some great discussion. 

If you want to prepare, read the passage (John 6:1-71),  asking yourself this question: 

Why do you believe in Jesus Christ? Who prompted you to do so? What does it mean to believe? Write down your thoughts and bring them with you on Sunday. 

I will be praying that God opens all our eyes to see the majesty of Jesus Christ, 

God bless, 

Casey D. 

Trinity Forum

Well, last Sunday we had a wonderful time discussing John 5, which presents us with a very full theological framework of the Trinity. The Trinity is that doctrine which teaches us that "In the unity of the Godhead there [are] three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost."[i]. John chapter 5 shows us some of the dynamics of this relationship, as Michael pointed out, such as reciprocal purity and divine unity.  To Michael’s (and I believe most of the class’s) despair, we were unable to really talk about it in much detail, as we all longed to do.

Therefore, here we are going to attempt to do just that.  I have opened up this blog post for us to spend some time discussing the Trinity; its dynamics and importance as a Christian doctrine, the logic of it, and how God relates to us as the Triune God.

Feel free to comment (really, it’s ok!). If you have trouble of where to start, here are some questions that might help you:

1.       The Trinity is what is known as an “incomprehensible” doctrine, meaning that it can never be fully understood by any but the divine mind. How might we explain the difference between incomprehensible and nonsensical (meaning that the doctrine makes no sense at all) doctrines? What other things about life, nature, and even the universe would you put under the “incomprehensible” category, but still in reality exist?

2.         There are two big explanations for the relationship of the persons of the Trinity, which each play off of one another: That the Trinity is separated by role: that the Son is “begotten” of the Father, that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son, and that the Father is unbegotten nor does he proceed from anyone, is the first, and earliest explanation. Athanasius, a theologian in the fourth century, leaned heavily on this definition when he was defending the Trinity from Arians, people who believed that Jesus was not God but rather the first of the created beings. Athanasius emphasized that Jesus was “begotten, not made”[ii], and existed in a relationship of “eternal generation”[iii]with God. Just God is the Father eternally, so is Jesus the Son eternally  The next explanation of the Trinity does not deny this relationship, but rather builds on it. It says that God exists in a mutua circumplexio (‘mutual indwelling’) of the three persons. Augustine, who came shortly after Athanasius, formulated this view. To him, God was a “community of love” before time began, and that the three persons found their identity in relation to one another rather than in their differing roles. How would you understand the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity? What evidence of the validity of these two views do you see in John 5? Which one do you find more helpful?

3.      It sometimes is easier to explain doctrines negatively rather than positively; when we say that God is “immutable”, that means that he cannot be moved; when we say that God is “eternal”, we can understand that as meaning that God is not constrained by time. How might you explain the Trinity negatively? What is it “not?”  

And if you need some reference works, here are some good articles written by theologians both  Modern and Classic:

John Owen on the Trinity: John Owen was a Puritan who taught and preached at Oxford during the seventeenth Century 

B.B.Warfield, The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity: Warfield was a theologian at Princeton in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. He is widely regarded as the last great evangelical Princeton theologian. 

D.A.Carson and Tim Keller, misunderstandings of the Trinity: This is in response to a new movement to re-install "modalism" to church doctrine, which says that there is one God, but that he simply "manifests" himself in three "manifestations. 

Bruce Ware, The masculine language of the Trinity and submission: Bruce Ware is a theological professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and has served as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. 

I look forward to your thoughts! 

God Bless, 

Casey D. 

---

[i] ‘Of God, and the Holy Trinity’, in The Westminster Confession of Faith, II, sect. 3.

[ii] Taken from the Nicene Creed, which Athanasius helped formulate.

[iii] This phrase originates from Origen, another early Church father, who himself had eschewed views of Jesus divinity.