Redemption as shown in the New Testament

This was a paper I wrote in college. A couple of the sources I used were Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology and Erich Sauer's book Triumph of the Crucified.

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." So what is meant by ‘the fullness of the time?’ It had been over 400 years since God had spoken to the nation of Israel through the prophets. This does not mean that God was not working out His plans, though. Quite the contrary. He was orchestrating on a grand scale to prepare the way for His Son. The conditions had to be just so and the prophecies needed to be fulfilled.
In the book of Daniel, two images come up that foretell coming kingdoms that would be precursors to the coming of the Messiah. In the vision of the great statue, there was the chest of silver, the belly of bronze and the legs of iron. These signified the Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires, respectively. We also see the image of the four beasts in which there was a bear, a four-headed leopard and the ‘dreadful’ beast. Again, these relate to the Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans. The most significant of these are the Greeks and the Romans. The primary influence of the Greeks was the spread of the Greek language and culture. Wherever Alexander the Great went, he would build amphitheaters, temples and Greek schools. The Roman contribution consisted of the rule of law and the famous Roman roads, some of which are still in existence today.
But what of God’s people? During the successive invasions and occupations by various armies, their religion had become weakened. Two groups arose in opposition to this: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Both groups were purists. The Pharisees were purists of the Law. So much so that over the centuries they developed an intricate system of sub-laws to make sure that the Law itself would not be violated. The Sadducees, on the other hand, focused primarily on the temple and the service there and rejected the oral law of the Pharisees. In both cases, they were so wrapped up in their own traditions that the traditions themselves became gods to them. It was the tradition that was to be revered, feared and served. Religious decay and moral decay had again entered into the house of Judah and when the conditions were just right, God sent His Son.
The Incarnation
"…for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." How could this be? The Lord becoming a man? It is still a mystery that the greatest of theologians wrestle with. The incarnation is a great mystery of God, but even as finite beings man can apprehend what it entails. The question that must be asked is this: Why did God clothe Himself with frail human flesh? What was the purpose of sending His Son? To answer this question, one must go back to the Old Testament. God had revealed His Law to the people through Moses at Mt. Sinai. God also knew that the people were not capable of keeping the Law so He set in place a sacrificial system whereby, through the blood of animals, man could cover over his sins and retain fellowship with the Father. There were also priests put in place to act as mediators between God and man and offer the sacrifices that were brought by the people.
The necessity of Christ’s humanity is made apparent in all of these areas and others. While man is not capable of keeping the Law of God because of his sinful nature, Jesus could and did live His life in full obedience to the Law. Therefore, He is able to act as our representative in His obedience just as Adam was our representative in sin. Secondly, as the blood of animals is sorely insufficient to actually take away the sins of man, a man’s blood must be poured out to take away the sins of man. Thus the sinless Christ must be that sacrifice. There remains, then the mediator between God and man. The high priest of the Old Testament may have been a good representative of man before God, but he did it imperfectly. He didn’t know the full suffering of all men, just his own. Here is where Christ enters as our mediator. He represents us perfectly before God. He is a man that has lived in the midst of the human experience. He knows what we have been through and how we feel. He is familiar with the temptations we have faced, yet has defeated them. For this reason, Christ also must remain a man forevermore. Eternally acting as our high priest and mediator after the order of Melchizadek.
In addition to these, Christ’s humanity also offers us this: He is the perfect example of how we are to live our lives to God. He also shows the pattern of our eternal, resurrected bodies as He is the Firstborn from among the dead.
As important as the humanity of Christ is, His deity is of equal importance. Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology sets forth three reasons for the necessity of Christ’s deity. First, a finite creature could not bear the penalty of the combined sins of all the elect for all time, only God could. Second, as Jonah 2:9 states, "…salvation is from the LORD." Due to this, no creature can affect the salvation of man. Third, only God could act as a perfect mediator, not only bringing man back to God, but revealing God to us in a perfect way as Christ revealed in the gospel of John where he said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father…."
Now that the necessity of both the humanity and the divinity of Christ has been explained, the question yet remains as to how it was accomplished. How could the perfectly holy God join with the corruptible flesh of man? Was Christ a human man with a divine will only? Were the two natures co-mingled in the one person? Was the divine divorced from the human in such a way as to make Christ, in effect, schizophrenic? As finite creatures, we may never fully understand how this union works, but some clues may be found in the pages of Scripture and the creeds of the early Church.
The first step in defining the relationship between the Father and the Son came at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Prior to this council, a man named Arius had begun teaching that the Father and the Son were not quite the same. He taught that they were of similar essence, but not the same. What was codified at the Council of Nicaea was that the Father and the Son were of the same essence; that there was a union in their substantial nature or actual being. The final definition of the orthodox view we hold to today was given at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It stated clearly that Jesus was perfectly or completely God and yet also perfectly or completely man. The creed goes on to affirm that the two natures exist in the one person “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” This has been termed the ‘hypostatic union.’
The Atonement
"…the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His live a ransom for many." Since the Fall, mankind has been in open rebellion to God. At birth we are guilty of original sin and throughout our lives we display that we are in bondage to a nature that is against God. There is nothing man can do that pleases God. There are several possibilities for man at this point: God could have left man in his sin and poured out His wrath in judgement, He could have decided to provide a way of salvation for all mankind or He could have provided a way to save some. Since the Scriptures tell the story of God’s saving grace, the first option can be eliminated. Likewise, it is clear in God’s word that some are still destined for judgement and wrath. That leaves only the option that God chose to provide a way of salvation for a portion of mankind. But how was this salvation to be worked out?
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." A shadow of God’s plan in salvation can be found in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Those who violated the Law were required, through the priest, to bring a blood sacrifice. This blood was to provide a covering for the sins, but was not worthy enough to actually pay the full penalty. Thus, Christ came to be a perfect atoning sacrifice for the sins of those whom God had chosen beforehand to take part in salvation. The entirety of the Atonement is comprised of several facets: first, fallen man was not able to obey the Law; second, man deserved death because of the transgressions of the Law; third, man was an enemy of God and lastly man was in bondage to sin. As was shown in the section on the Incarnation, Christ lived a life in perfect obedience to the Father. He perfectly fulfilled the requirements of the Law. In His death, Christ bore the punishment of our sins on His shoulders. At that point, He suffered the accumulated sufferings of all the elect for all time. He was declared guilty in place of the elect and bore the wrath of the Father for them and His righteousness was credited to the elect. Because of this, "we have peace with God." We have been reconciled. Lastly, He broke the chains of bondage to sin. Among the last recorded words of Christ on the cross was the word "tetelestai", a Greek word meaning "paid in full." The sin-debt that had been accumulated since the Fall in the Garden had been laid upon His shoulders and had been accounted for. Now, through faith in that finished work, mankind could again have fellowship and right standing with the Father in order to enjoy Him forever.
Over the centuries there have been other opinions of what Christ accomplished at Calvary. Rather than addressing the more outlandish ones, a short presentation will be made of some of these other views. First is the ‘ransom’ theory. Simply put, this view states that Satan held mankind captive and that Christ’s blood was shed as payment to Satan to free them. This view was held by some early Church fathers as well as some modern ‘preachers.’ The challenge with this view is that is give too much authority to Satan and overlooks the idea that God’s judgement for sin had to be fulfilled. Another popular view, especially among liberals, is the ‘moral influence’ theory. This theory states that the death of Jesus was a ‘supreme manifestation of love’ and set an unparalleled example for us to follow in our moral lives. This view not only denies the deity of Christ, which liberals are wont to do, it denies the ideas of justice and holiness in God the Father. It takes away the seriousness of man’s sinful condition and bases ‘salvation’ on the emotional state of the individual. The final view that will be examined here is referred to as the ‘governmental’ theory. Some have deemed it fit to consider this view the ‘kick-the-dog’ theory. What this view holds to is that the Father has put in place a perfectly holy order of things. When man violated that order, the anger of God was roused. In order to manifest His great displeasure with the way mankind had trampled over His Law, God poured out his wrath on Jesus. Not because of anything Jesus had done or anything He was being held accountable for, but simply because He was there. In a similar way that a man comes home from a hard day at work, angry with his supervisor, and kicks the family dog to vent his anger. Therefore Christ did not atone for our sins, He merely served as an example of what happens to those who violate the Law of God. None of the alternative views presented here are true to the whole of Scripture. It becomes obvious as one reads the Bible that Christ’s death was meant as a substitutionary atonement for the purpose of paying the penalty for all the past, present and future sins of the elect. Erich Sauer notes this on the idea of substitution:
So deeply was the thought of substitution impressed in advance on the Old Testament that sometimes it uses one and the same word for sin and sin offering (Heb. Chata-ah). In Exod. 34:7 and I Sam. 2:17 this word means sin; in Num. 32:23 and Isa. 5:18, the punishment of sin; and in Lev. 6:18, 23 and Ezek. 40:39 the sin offering. Thus also Christ, Who knew no sin, was "made sin for us," that is, was caused to be the sin offering (II Cor. 5:21).
Application
"For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." Therein lies the ultimate meaning in the work of Christ. According to Sauer, the Atonement of Christ had a dual effect: that of justification and that of sanctification. Through His death and resurrection the elect are justified and counted as righteous and He died on the cross so that His chosen ones would not have to suffer the wrath of God. Those who place their faith in Christ are at the same time saved from sin and saved to righteousness. They are now a "new creation." The idea that Christians have been "crucified with Christ" has several aspects to it: they are dead to the world around them, they are dead to their old ways (the ‘old man’), they are in a position of victory over Satan and his influence and, lastly, they are heirs to the bountiful blessings of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet this all has a great responsibility. Christians have been given the gift of God’s grace and will be held accountable for how it was used or abused. For Christ will return one day as the righteous judge and all who believe will be called before Him to account for how they lived their lives under grace. Sauer points out that frighteningly severe terms are used in connection with the judgment of the Church when Christ returns. The quality of our works will be revealed by fire. Those who have squandered their inheritance will be filled with fear and will shrink away in shame. They will enter heaven, but only in a similar manner to a man saved from a burning home only to find that he has nothing left to his name.It is for this reason that the Christian must work throughout the course of their salvation seeking the will of God through His Spirit. It should inspire great awe and humility to know that, when man was a wicked sinner set against God in rebellion, He would choose some that took park in that rebellion to be saved from the just penalty for their treason. Not only this but the fact that, in order to accomplish this, He poured out His wrath on His perfect Son instead so that the chosen could be counted as righteous before Him. It is because of this great gift that the Christian should walk a life of humble obedience. He has been counted as righteous, so let him walk in righteousness. The apostle Paul puts it so succinctly when he says in Romans, "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" The Christian must also change their way of thinking to one that is honoring to God. This is only possible because of the work of Christ as there is no way for a man in sin to do this. This renewal of the mind comes from the reading of the Word of God and fellowship with Him through prayer. After all, what burden is this? To be asked to fellowship with the One who saved us from eternal punishment? To search out His written word so as to know His will and do it? These are very small things in light of what He has done to redeem us to Himself. The change the world sees in the life of the believer will only bring glory to God and that is purpose for which man was created. Soli Deo Gloria!

A pitiable death

I just learned today about the passing of Robert Funk, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. In spite of the fact that I abhor everything he ever taught about Jesus and the Bible (or anything else having to do with religion in general) I do mourn for the fact that he only now can see the foolishness of his false religion. Now he knows the true significance of the cross and how true the Bible is. May God have mercy on his soul.

Battle over Intelligent Design in PA

Came across this by Laurie Goodstein in yesterday’s New York Times (I think registration is required) and wanted to comment on a few interesting elements. The article is about the upcoming court case in Dover, PA over whether intelligent design (I.D.) should be presented as an alternative to evolution in the public schools.
The first interesting tidbit I noticed right off was in the opening paragraph where Ms. Goodstein writes, “Sheree Hied…was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about ‘alternatives’ to evolution….”. Why the quote marks around “alternatives”? This by itself shows bias on the part of Ms. Goodstein (big surprise from the Times). The quotes imply that the “alternatives” are not really “alternatives”, they’re just being called “alternatives” to get in under the radar.
But the most interesting item highlighting the writer’s bias is the description given to the parties involved. First the town itself is described as “a rural, mostly blue-collar community” and the primary party interviewed on behalf of the plaintiffs was Mrs. Hied (mentioned above) who, we are told, is “a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company”. Contrast this with the citizen spoken to that is in favor of banning the teaching of I.D. This man is described in the following way: “at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the internet…keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case.” This dichotomy is apparently drawn to show that those who support I.D. are ignorant and uneducated while those who oppose it are of much higher intelligence and learning. This is a complete affront to all who hold that evolution does not answer all the questions that arise when the subject of origins is broached. It also shows the elitist attitude held by those in support of evolution.
The key question in this whole debate can be summed up in the question, “Is there such a thing as the supernatural?” To the evolutionist the answer is “No”. And by giving this answer they have shut themselves off to many answers to questions they are asking. It’s like asking the question “What has wings, feathers, webbed feet, lays eggs and quacks?” and then limiting the answers by adding, “…and the answer can’t be ‘a duck’.” In the same way, one cannot ask the question, “How did this great universe of ours, with all the multiplied millions of complex organisms and mechanisms, come into being?” and then saying, “…and it can’t be anything that can’t be explained by the laws of nature.” By starting with this presupposition scientists have actually taken themselves out of the arena of science. The scientific method is described as a process that follows the steps of observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, testing and theory. At one point in the article Witold J. Walczak (legal director of the A.C.L.U.) is quoted as saying that “intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testable.” By his own definition evolution does not pass Mr. Walczak’s test. It is not testable. When has anyone ever demonstrated a change from one species to another in a laboratory? Where are the fossils of transitional forms? All of this has been speculated on but never proven. Yet the children in the public schools are told to believe these myths as fact just because academic elites have suppressed any competing claims and changed the definition of science to allow only natural explanations (though they have not proven that the supernatural does not exist – nor can they).
All of this is to be expected of any group of unregenerate persons whose hearts and minds have not been made alive by the living God. Romans 1 tells us that:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23 – emphasis added)

And so it goes in the world of “scientific enlightenment.”

Why the Religious Right Won't Win, Pt. 2

The Long, Hard Fight
In addressing the question of the difficulty of the struggle to “reclaim” America, some topics in the areas of biblical history and theology must be examined. In the historical account found in the book of Genesis it is clearly shown that, as mankind increased in number to populate the earth, he also became increasingly wicked in his thoughts, words and actions. As a result man incurred the wrath of God which culminated in the flood that destroyed all living things. Yet God showed mercy to one man, Noah, (whom He chose from among all other men even though he, too, was sinful) and spared him and his family from the flood waters. It is said of Noah that he walked with God (this being in spite of the fact that he was counted among the sinful men cited just a few paragraphs before). In spite of this it is stated that, after the flood, mankind returned immediately (within that generation) to the wickedness that prevailed before the flood. So in this particular instance we see man rebelling against God, God pronouncing judgment while preserving a small remnant, man turning back to God as a result of the judgment and man returning to rebellion after the judgment has passed. This pattern has been repeated over and over again throughout history. For example we see that even the nation of Israel rebelled against God and turned to pagan idolatry. God warned the nation of His coming judgment for their sin through His prophets but they would not hear. As a result the nation was overrun by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and the people taken captive to Babylon. During the time immediately prior to the judgment, a prophet named Elijah believed that he was the only one remaining in Israel who had remained true to God, but God reassured him and told him of ten-thousand others whom He had saved for Himself. Again, a small remnant preserved by God while the rest of His “chosen people” were carried off by foreigners.
In applying this to America we must recognize the simple fact that God operates on an individual level when it comes to righteousness. While God does call nations to righteousness, they are made so through the righteousness of the individuals who comprise the citizenry of those nations. We can see that, although Israel had a Law that was given by God Himself, they still disobeyed and were judged. How can Evangelical leaders expect to make America righteous by the laws of men? The only way for a nation to be made righteous is for the people to be made righteous. This cannot be done by legislation. The root of the problem is the sinful state of mankind. As the prophet Isaiah stated, “there is no one righteous, not even one.” This is the reason the fight by the religious right has been so difficult. An attempt is being made to force people who are opposed to God in their hearts (though they may not say so much with their mouth) to be obedient to the moral truths of God’s word. This has been met with great resistance and will be met with increasing resistance. Those whose hearts have not been changed by God will desire as much license as they can get when it comes to how they lead their lives. They desire total freedom and no accountability. That is the result of sin and that is the insurmountable obstacle of the religious right in their political aspirations.
The responsibility of the Christian, then, is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire nation and pray that God would change the hearts of men and turn them from rebellion to obedience. Paul writes that the gospel is the “power of God for salvation” and again, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” He makes it plain that the means God uses to change a person’s heart from one of rebellion to obedience is the proclamation of the gospel. It is then the duty of every Christian to proclaim that gospel to any who do not already possess it and to pray for their salvation. And what is the gospel? The essentials of the gospel include pointing out a person’s sin and rebellion against God, proclaiming God’s coming judgment on all those who rebel against Him, urging them to turn from their sin and to call upon Jesus Christ to save them from their sin. Whether the person responds to this in a positive, life-changing way is up to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and nothing the Christian can do can convince someone to submit to God. Yet this is the work that the Christian is called to. Anything short of this is a betrayal of the mission that Jesus gave when He said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples.” Notice He did not say “go forth and make new laws,” or “go forth and be political activists.”
The Christian Role
All this having been said, Christians should participate in the governmental system as far as it allows. Rather than channeling money and energy into political activism, there should be a concerted effort at evangelism in America. Yet the Christian is also responsible to participate in government in every way allowed by law. Christians can and should vote for those who uphold godly virtue. Christians can and should vote for ballot items in a way that reflects their values. There is no biblical prohibition of Christians even running for public office, yet much care should be taken for there is truth in the phrase “power corrupts.” And if political office is sought or obtained it should be made clear that the office is to be carried out to the glory of God. There is no room for the politician who claims that their personal views will not affect their policy. The Christian worldview cannot be compartmentalized in this way. For the true believer, the Christian faith and the word of God should permeate every aspect of their life and being. So, it is through the gospel converting souls that the religious right may win many in America, but it is unlikely that all of America will be won for Christ (though anything is possible with God). Evangelicals merely need to be faithful to the work to which they have been called: proclaiming the gospel to the lost with a view toward their conversion. Then God will bless their work and maybe even their nation.

Why the Religious Right Won't Win

I'm going out on a limb here and may get some heat, but these are some thoughts I've had recently. Please know that I am not being defeatist or pessimistic here, just following a particular line of thinking. This is only the first installment, so keep following the posts to the end in order to get the full picture.

Why the Religious Right Won’t Win America

There are many in America today that are becoming increasingly concerned by the influence that the “religious right” seems to be finding in the government of the United States. Writers, editors, and producers from various news outlets constantly decry the idea that, in this pluralistic society, one particular set of faith-based values should be officially espoused by our nation. Make no mistake, the religious right are seen as a threat and many, if not a majority, in this country will not stand having their lifestyle attacked in this way. On the other side of this issue are the conservative, evangelical Christians (these are the ones who primarily make up the face of the “religious right” and in most cases the two are considered synonymous). They claim that America is in a steep moral decline akin to that of the great Roman Empire prior to its fall; and that if Americans do not turn back and worship the God of the Bible that the United States will go the way of Rome. In order to prevent this, an attempt is made to curb the moral decline by enacting legislation that favors traditional Judeo-Christian morality and punishes what is seen as immoral under that system of ethics. While this is a lofty goal there are many obstacles, some of which are insurmountable. In spite of its grand efforts and determined spirit, the religious right will never “take back” America.

Re-claiming America?

One of the Evangelical groups that is taking part in this fight uses the slogan, “Reclaiming America for Christ.” While this seems like a great rallying cry for any Bible-believing Christian, there is a questionable premise at its root: that Christ claimed America to begin with. The second question to be explored is this: if Christ wanted America reclaimed, why has it been so difficult? In dealing with the first question one must return to the roots and founding of our nation. The North American continent was originally discovered accidentally. Christopher Columbus was seeking an easier way to reach the islands of the East Indies in order to decrease the time and money needed to ship goods to and from the area and to increase trade capacity. This expedition was, at its root, a commercial endeavor. Once it was determined that Columbus has actually run into an entirely new land that had, as yet, been unexplored by Europeans, many flocked to its shores in search of land and raw materials such as wood and minerals (especially gold, silver and various other valuable commodities). Again, we have commercialism as the driving force behind the activities in the Americas. As time progressed, various groups began to travel to the America and settle. Some of these groups came to America in order to escape religious persecution and to establish communities wherein they could worship as their conscience dictated. Keep in mind, also, that Christianity was the majority, if not exclusive, faith of all of Europe at this time. There were some Jews and a very few from other faiths, but by and large everyone in Europe claimed some form of the Christian religion and the same was true of those who came from Europe to settle America. When the United States broke away from English control this was still true of nearly every person living here at that time. Because of this, the founding documents held within them the assumption that whenever religion was spoken of Christianity was to be understood as what was being referred to.
Now, there is yet another aspect of this to be examined. Just because someone claims to be a part of a particular group, does that make them a genuine member? For instance, a man can claim to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts. He can know the Scout Handbook inside and out, he can own a uniform and be able to recite pledges and such, but if he is not recognized by the head of the Boy Scouts as a legitimate member, then he has made a false claim. The same is true of Christianity. One can go to church every week, be baptized, memorize the Bible and even teach in a Sunday School class or pastor a church; but unless that person has truly experienced conversion in his heart and been claimed by Christ then his profession is in vain. How this works out in the founding of our country is this: just because a large percentage of the population claimed to be Christian does not guarantee (nor can it be determined) that they were genuine Christians. Even if they were genuine believers and did all they did according to what they believed the Bible to say, that did not obligate God to put His blessing on their endeavors, nor did it force Christ to put his stamp of approval on this new nation and call it His.
Some have posited that the situation with the United States is similar to that of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. The major problem with this is that, in making this interpretation, one fails to recognize that the choosing of Israel by God was an isolated instance used as a picture for what was to come under the New Covenant. Just as God chose Israel as a physical nation, differentiated from all the surrounding nations, as a visible representation of His special chosen people - so He also chose a certain group of people, distinct from all other people on the earth (Christians), to be His true “holy nation.” This was not an instance to be repeated over and over again throughout history. So to say that the United States of America was claimed by Christ or for Christ has no meaning and the idea of re­-claiming it for Him, as will be shown later, sets Evangelicals up for failure.