My late April blog on 'The Obedience of Christ' elicited a response from Nick of Nick's Catholic Blog, referring me to his article at http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/01/penal-substitution-debate-negative.html. 'Negative' that article certainly is, as far as penal substitution is concerned, though carefully written and with a host of biblical references. Printed, it amounts to 12 pages. It raises matters I never intended to tackle in my brief blog on the vocabulary we use to allude to Christ's obedience, but since I have read it I feel I should respond and set out a (relatively short) positive case for penal substitution, referring also in passing to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to which Nick's blog also refers and which he also denies.
For those who may never read Nick's article, reading this may be like listening to one half of a 'phone conversation, but hopefully some of it will make sense.
1.'Penal Substitution is grounded on the Protestant notion that justification is a legal event' is how Nick's article begins. This is a bit like saying that the tail wags the dog. The two doctrines, of penal substitution as the heart of the atonement and of justification as a legal event, are most certainly inter-related, as one would expect from a coherent system of saving acts of God, but both are derived from Scripture, not from each other in a circular fashion.
2. The definition Nick gives of penal substitution is reasonably accurate: 'God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ. In other words, the Wrath the elect deserved for their sins was instead poured out by the Father onto Jesus'. This incorporates 'particular redemption' as it refers only to the elect, which is correct though not all definitions of penal substitution would be so precise; but it also leans towards the 'wrathful Father punishing an innocent Son' idea which is a distortion of the doctrine; it should be insisted that God was substituting himself in his Son and it was the outworking of an intra-Trinitarian agreement. The question is: is the doctrine of God giving himself in his Son to suffer instead of his people the death, punishment and curse due to them as the penalty for sin, found in Scripture?
3. Nick asserts that 'the Mosaic sacrifices did not operate in a Penal Substitutionary framework. Nowhere does the Mosaic Law indicate the punishment for sin was transferred to an animal or God's wrath being poured out upon it'. His arguments are as follows:
a) Leviticus 5:5-13 allows an offering of flour if a poor man could not afford even two pigeons. But this is to ignore the big picture which is that the heart of the sacrificial system was the shedding of blood. A key verse is Lev 17:11: 'For the life of every creature is in the blood and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life'. It is not the life of the animal, as some have tried to argue, but the life violently taken in sacrifice, that is the atonement; the blood shed, not the blood flowing in the veins. As we read in the New Testament, '...without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins' (Heb 9:22).
The heart of the sacrificial system was the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) which begins with a reference to the day when Aaron's sons were killed for offering unauthorised fire ( Lev 16:1,2; and see Lev 10:1-3). A reference to the wrath of God could not be clearer. The implication is that the atonement is to avert God's wrath and that Aaron entered the presence of God at the risk of his life unless God accepted the sacrifice.
b) The scapegoat is indeed bearing the guilt and punishment of the people of Israel into the wilderness. It is a visible picture of what is typically achieved in the blood sacrifice of the goat that was slaughtered - sin is taken away by one party instead of being borne by another.
c) The Passover lamb (Exodus 12) averted the wrath of the destroying angel not by being eaten and its blood applied to the souls of the Israelites, as Nick suggests,foreshadowing the Eucharist, but by the blood being applied to the lintels of the doors; it was the angel's seeing the blood on the lintel that saved the Israelites (Exod 12:23).
d) The description of the sacrifices as a 'fragrant aroma' to the Lord is certainly because they pleased him as of course did the sacrifice of Christ ( Eph 5:1). This is a pointer to Christ's perfect obedience and certainly, too, Christians are urged to imitate his obedience. God requires perfect self-consecration. But only Christ could offer this. For his disciples' sake he consecrated himself (John 17:19), that is, he offered the perfect self-consecration so our imperfections would be forgiven. Far from denying penal substitution this is integral to it.
4. It is next asserted (after a number of quotes from Calvinist authors) that the gospels say nothing about Christ's spiritual suffering which these authors claim. Christ's cry 'My God My God why have you forsaken me?'(Matt 27:46) Nick takes to be God simply not providing relief from his attackers, as in Psalm 22, and it is 'blasphemous' to suggest God would inflict punishment on his Son. But what of the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane? Was this a fear of physical and emotional sufferings only? Did not Christ in that case show less courage than many human martyrs? And what of the context of the cross - the three hours of darkness? Is the presence of the wrath of God not powerfully symbolised there?
But this is where we have to look at the death of Christ in a much broader context. The atonement, however it may be interpreted, is to do with sin and God's response to sin. The penalty for sin is death. Death is not extinction or annihilation; it is, certainly, physical, the separation of soul and body and the return of the body to dust; but it is also, far more, a spiritual and eternal reality. Spiritually it is a different mode of continued existence in the presence of God. We are all dead in our trespasses (Eph 2:1). It is exclusion from fellowship with God in his love and grace; it is the experience of condemnation and the wrath of God begun now in this life with the certainty of eternal death - the 'second death' - in the hereafter. (John 3:36; 5:28,29; Matthew 25:46; Rev.20:14,15; Rom 1:18-3:26). The wrath of God is so woven into the text of Scripture (there are some 580 references in the Old Testament alone using over 20 different Hebrew words, and numerous references in the New Testament) that any idea of atonement has to deal with it and with the justice of God.
Moreover wrath is no impersonal mechanistic force but is God's personal, holy and consistent revulsion against sin so that even when it is seen in the natural processes of nature and history , which it surely is (see Romans 1:18f),it is still the work of God who works through those processes - it is a wrath 'revealed from heaven'; and further, though it works in history, it is still a wrath yet to come - a wrath 'to be revealed' on 'that day' for which impenitent sinners store up wrath for themselves.
To miss this framework when interpreting texts which describe the cross-work of Christ is truly to miss the wood while peering hard at the trees. It is not a desire simply to tie up a neat system of doctrines that leads Protestants to the idea of penal substitution, but the overwhelming evidence of Scripture itself - endorsed, it should also be said, in the doctrine of the early and medieval church where, though there was much variety of description of the atonement, the doctrine of penal substitution was not lacking, from Athanasius, through Augustine, via Anselm to Aquinas. It was certainly not a doctrine invented in the 16th Century though from this time it underwent much refinement.
Just to take Romans 3:21-26, for example, it is a good translator's decision to render hilasterion (v 25) as propitiation, that is, an atoning sacrifice that not only expiates sin but by satisfying God's justice removes God's wrath and renders God 'propitious', making peace by the blood of his cross. Does this mean it makes an angry God loving? Not at all; it is the love of God that provides the atonement in the first place; but in satisfying his justice, God is now reconciled to sinners, his wrath assuaged.
Unless there is propitiation in the work of the cross, there is nothing to deal with the main problem that Paul describes in Rom 1:18-3:20.
Inadequate theories of the atonement never deal satisfactorily with the wrath of God and the justice of God. They invariably stem from inadequate views of the seriousness of sin. This in turn leads to a dilution of the meaning of grace and love; for John tells us that the love of God is seen in this, 'that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins' (1 Jn 4:10).
This is why we say that Christ truly knew forsakenness by his Father as he experienced not just mental, physical and emotional pain, but the unique spiritual pain of bearing the Father's wrath against sin for people for whom he was the representative and substitute. No other interpretation does justice to the teaching of Scripture; nor to the work of Christ; nor to the needs of lost sinners.
5. In this light too we must interpret Isaiah 53. It is not essential to good interpretation to interpret this passage only according to the specific references and allusions in the New Testament but let us at least start there as Nick does.
a) Matt. 8:16,17 in no way denies penal substituion; it only suggests that healing , especially eschatological healing, was part of what Christ won on the cross.
b) It is doubtful if the difference between 'punishment' and 'chastisement' Nick seeks to draw in Isa 53 v 5b, will take the weight of his argument - that it is to do with correcting a wrong rather than eternal punishment and therefore does not mean penal substitution. Alec Motyer in The Prophecy of Isaiah at page 430 translates it as ' "our peace punishment", the punishment necessary to secure or restore our peace with God'. That seems to be a pretty good foundation for penal substitution. The point is - it is certainly substituted punishment, even if we make the verse say no more than that.
c) V 6,7,11, and 12 are referred to in 1 Peter 2:22-25. With 1 Peter 3:18 ('For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God...') it is clear that while the immediate context of 1 Peter 2:21f is to show forth the example of Christ's sufferings to the suffering Christians to whom Peter is writing, Peter's theology of atonement is substitutionary, and to read anything less into 2:24-25 is artificial.
d) Returning directly to Isa 53, what other meaning can there be in 'It was the Lord's will to crush him' than that the Lord was inflicting punishment on him (v 10)? Clearly, out of his sufferings, many are to benefit; 'he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors'.
The following points are set out by the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions (Jeffery, Ovey and Sach, IVP 2007) in summarising Isaiah 53's messsage (at pages 54f):
1. The Servant is explicitly said to suffer 'for' others: see the contrast in vv 4-6 between 'he', 'his' and 'him' on the one hand and 'we', 'us', 'we all' and 'us all' on the other.
2. The suffering of the Servant brings great benefits to those for whom he suffers: see especially v 5 and also the context of the following chapters, the blessings of which the beneficiaries of the Servant's sufferings enjoy.
3. The Servant suffered willngly and deliberately, not as a passive victim of the actions of others - vv 4,5.
4. It is God himself who acts to lay the people's sin upon the Servant and to punish him -vv 6,10.
5. The Servant himself is sinless and righteous - v 9.
6. He suffered not for his own sins but for the sins of others vv 11,12.
7. The word translated 'guilt offering' (see Lev 5:16,18; 7:7) in v 10 anticipates something that will become explicit in the New Testament: the animal sacrifices of Leviticus are fulfilled in the sacrificial death of a person.
This reminds us of the theology of the letter to the Hebrews where it is clear that the Lord's work of atonement was carried out in his role as the High Priest of his people - indeed the only priest his people need. His atoning work is of a piece with his continuing intercessory work. Both are the one work of priesthood, the one part completed on earth ('It is finished'), the other continuing in heaven. One does not exclude the other; both are necessary parts of the priest's one work.
6. Galatians 3:13 is, as Nick recognises, a crucial verse - Christ became a 'curse' for us. To say that it is 'blasphemous' to say that God spiritually curses his Son, is begging the question. Paul refers to Deut 21 and as Nick does elsewhere we can use the New Testament as a guide to how the Old is interpreted. Paul is clearly applying the cursedness of a humiliating death for criminals to what Christ suffered. But the fruit of Christ's 'becoming a curse' shows that it is penal substitution that is referred to - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, and so the blessing of Abraham comes to us.
7. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is also an important verse, as Nick rightly acknowledges, though more to do with the imputation of Christ's righteousness than penal substitution. The verses Nick stacks up do not, however, convincingly make a case for translating hamartia in two different ways in the same verse - first as 'sin' then as 'sin-offering'. That may work where the context demands; but here it does not; it is far more reasonable to translate it as 'sin' both times. And then it makes sense. Christ was made sin for us, we are made the righteousness of God in him. Attempts have been multiplied to get around the doctrine of imputed righteousness but few things are clearer than that it is taught here.
The issue of the imputation of righteousness deserves much more comment. Nick argues in a comment on my blog that Rom 3:21-26, Gal 2:21 and 2 Cor 5:21, major 'justification' texts, only refer to the death of Christ. It is debatable if we are ever to look at his death separated from his life, but, in addition, look at the emphasis on Christ's 'one act of obedience' (hardly an appropriate phrase if it refers only to his death, as all of Christ's life was an act of righteousness) in Romans 5:18,19; and on the righteousness received from God that comes from God through faith in Philippians 3:9.
The whole context of Romans indeed is about man's need for righteousness which he cannot provide, which meets God's claims and which Christ provides. The inevitable tendency of denials of the 'active' righteousness of Christ is to allow a righteousness of our human works to slip in the back door to fulfil the law which in reality only Christ's work can do.
8. Nick moves on to state the Catholic (that is, Roman Catholic) position, "popularly called 'satisfation' in Catholic documents (or even 'satisfactory punishment' in older works)". This Catholic position is apparently that it 'consists in appeasing God's wrath by good works rather than directing it onto someone else to endure'. Here, in a phrase, is a denial of grace, of God's love, of the gospel and of Christ's work. What a cruel sham the cross was if we ourselves are to appease God! Or if a death was not necessary! Why did Christ die?
To support his case Nick looks at various cases of Old Testament intercession; Phinehas for example in Numbers 25:1-13. But what stopped the plague was that Phinehas slew the sinning Israelite and his Midianite woman. There was a death, albeit not of Phinehas. Let us go back to basics. What is the penalty for sin? Death. What will stop the wrath of God and satisfy his justice? A death. Other examples of intercession involve death ( eg Exod 32:28-35; Numbers 16:42-49) or a sacrifice(Job 42:7-9). It just does not work to say that bloodless intercession is a principle that excludes penal substitution. Remember : without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
9. Nick goes on to say that one of the most devastating criticisms of penal substitution is that salvation can be lost, according to the teaching of Scripture. I am grateful that someone recognises the connection between a true understanding of the atonement and the concept of eternal security, or 'perseverance of the saints'. The only problem is, that the Bible does not teach that salvation can be lost, but rather that God's elect will never be lost. Nick lists 18 texts allegedly supporting his case but none in reality do. The clear teaching of Scripture is on the side of the promise that those who trust in the Lord will never perish and that the Son and Father will never lose any who come to him: John 6:37,39,40,44; 10:27-29; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Heb 13:5 etc.
One reason for this is - what? The doctrine of penal substitution, and in particular the doctrine of particular redemption. Nick sees the connection here more clearly than many Protestant evangelicals who try to keep penal substitution in tandem with a potential or hypothetical universalism and even with the concept of the loss of salvation. But Father, Son and Holy Spirit work in perfect harmony so that those whom the Father elected, the Son purchased and the Spirit renews, so that a people is saved for eternity. None for whom such a Triune work is completed can be lost. It is unthinkable.
10. Nick throws in some really big issues at the end.
a) That it is unjust for someone to die for others. But this reckons without the doctrine of covenantal or federal union with Christ by which what is his is reckoned to us and what is ours is reckoned to him. This is not unjust nor is it a fiction; it is a real union created by God which makes the 'great exchange' quite just.
b) That God should be able to forgive without punishing someone. After all, does he not expect that of us? But (i) God's justice is the 'bottom line' in the universe. Without his justice holding firm there would be no justice at all; and most of us feel the need for some justice after this life to right the wrongs done on earth. (ii) God 's justice is an expression of his character, and cannot be set aside without implying mutability in his character. God's justice is not simply his arbitrary will which can be changed 'at will'. To sin is to 'spit at God' and that cannot be simply 'set aside' or there is no basis for right and wrong. (iii) God claims vengeance for himself; we are not to seek revenge, not because it is wrong in itself, but because it is wrong for us. We do it sinfully, ignorantly and disproportionately; God does it perfectly and so we leave justice to him. But to avenge himself on evildoers is not wrong for him. The amazing thing is that believers are also evildoers - and for them, Christ died and took the vengeance on the cross.
c)If we are eternally forgiven why do we need to repent regularly? Because repentance is not what gains forgiveness - it is only the instrument or mechanism which, as the 'flipside' of faith, enables us to receive and enjoy forgiveness. Christ alone wins forgiveness. We need to repent daily because our sins, even when forgiven, cloud the relationship with God. Repentance and faith are gifts of God, themselves aspects of salvation, and although acts whereby we instrumentally receive salvation, they are not, properly speaking, conditions of it to be performed by us. We need to be able to receive his forgiveness in our experience; but only the shed blood of Christ obtains it.
I am grateful to Nick for making me think through some aspects of the doctrine of penal substitution again but his arguments far from convince me. It is not so much the detail of some of his exegesis but the bigger issues of sin, justice, wrath and grace which he does not adequately take into account and which provide the framework in which the texts need to be interpreted.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Friday, 30 April 2010
Prove God exists and we'll protect your right to act on what you believe!
'In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence' said Lord Justice Laws in a recent case. He was ruling against Gary Macfarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked because he refused to give sex therapy sessions to a homosexual couple, because of his beliefs. The judge also said that no religious beliefs could be protected under the law. 'The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified...It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.[It would set] our constitution on the way to a theocracy, which is necessarily autocratic'.(Taken from the Daily Telegraph 30th April).
Well, well. Lots could be said and Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali says some of it very well in a comment in the same paper. I shall just put out a few thoughts:
1. Has not freedom of religion long been regarded as a fundamental human right?
2. Does that not entail the protection of such beliefs under the law?
3. This protection is not on the basis of the objective verifiability of such beliefs or their 'rationality' but on the presupposition that in a society which respects the individual (which idea, we may say, is a development of Christianity - Calvinistic Christianity no less) people should be able to worship as they wish without interference from the state.
4. Presumably Laws, LJ, knows this and would not stop Mr Macfarlane worshipping in his church on Sunday; so the issue then is not about his faith as such but about the practice of Mr Macfarlane's religion in the public square from Monday to Saturday.
5. It is therefore a question of morality more than religion in itself; a matter of the moral implications entailed in Mr Macfarlane's Christian faith. To the Christian this is inseparable from the faith - as it would be for any serious religious adherent.
6. Presumably then the judge's objection is that this moral stance of Mr Macfarlane cannot be seen to be based on any 'objective' criteria, anything 'rational'. Putting it another way, it appears (from the scanty material to which I have had access) that had Mr Macfarlane's moral stance been based on some objectively verifiable criteria, he would have had his rights protected.
7. But what could that be? What could be an objective basis for morality which would have passed Lord Justice Laws' test? Would it need to show some obvious public benefit (a utilitarian test)? Or be 'scientifically' proven (a positivist test)? Lord Justice Laws does not seem to have based his judgement on the rightness or otherwise of homosexuality - indeed that has not come into it. So Mr Macfarlane would presumably not be required to show that his morality was 'superior' to that which either tolerates or promotes homosexuality. The basis of the judge's argument is not the merits of the content of Christian morality but its lack, apparently, of objective grounds.
8. Are we at the stage therefore where we have to be prepared to go to court in such matters prepared to 'prove' the 'truth' of Christianity (a matter on which Dr Nazir -Ali gives a few useful hints)? Surely courts are not qualified to judge such matters!Surely judges would not want to try! Could courts be flooded with church historians, theologians, philosophers and Christians with a testimony wheeled in as expert witnesses? But how else can one show the objective validity of a faith? Laws LJ presumably thinks no religion could ever do that. In a sense he is right; one can produce evidence for its goodness and usefulness, in principle and in history, and why should not that be allowed? However it would not amount to the establishing of an objective basis for the morality. Could evidence ever do more than show that the morality was practically beneficial? Could anything less than the proof of God's existence ultimately satisfy Laws LJ's test in the Macfarlane case? And is any court seriously going to want to try to adjudicate that?
9. But then - what objective basis ultimately is there for any value system? If Laws LJ were asked to provide objective, rational criteria by which his own presumably secular morality could be established - from where would it come? Does not the quest for all 'objectivity' finally resolve itself into a faith issue?
10. In conclusion, a fascinating bundle of questions is being raised by these cases and it is hoped that this will go to a higher court - which would have to be the Supreme Court. Left as it is, Laws LJ seems to have left the protection of religous rights, even to worship, quite apart from the practice of Christian principles in the work-place, without a foundation that the law would recognise. This would seem to undermine some fundamental and widely entrenched rights legislation in Europe. Did he mean to go that far? He has also left all rights in a state of uncertainty - for what is the objective basis for any protection of rights? What is the objective basis for example for freedom of speech? Or the right of association?
11.It also leaves Christians able to hold their faith privately but unable to express it publicly in any situation where it comes into conflict with popular mores, without fear of legal sanctions. Whether or not we call this persecution, it is certainly creating an environment in which persecution is inevitable.
Well, well. Lots could be said and Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali says some of it very well in a comment in the same paper. I shall just put out a few thoughts:
1. Has not freedom of religion long been regarded as a fundamental human right?
2. Does that not entail the protection of such beliefs under the law?
3. This protection is not on the basis of the objective verifiability of such beliefs or their 'rationality' but on the presupposition that in a society which respects the individual (which idea, we may say, is a development of Christianity - Calvinistic Christianity no less) people should be able to worship as they wish without interference from the state.
4. Presumably Laws, LJ, knows this and would not stop Mr Macfarlane worshipping in his church on Sunday; so the issue then is not about his faith as such but about the practice of Mr Macfarlane's religion in the public square from Monday to Saturday.
5. It is therefore a question of morality more than religion in itself; a matter of the moral implications entailed in Mr Macfarlane's Christian faith. To the Christian this is inseparable from the faith - as it would be for any serious religious adherent.
6. Presumably then the judge's objection is that this moral stance of Mr Macfarlane cannot be seen to be based on any 'objective' criteria, anything 'rational'. Putting it another way, it appears (from the scanty material to which I have had access) that had Mr Macfarlane's moral stance been based on some objectively verifiable criteria, he would have had his rights protected.
7. But what could that be? What could be an objective basis for morality which would have passed Lord Justice Laws' test? Would it need to show some obvious public benefit (a utilitarian test)? Or be 'scientifically' proven (a positivist test)? Lord Justice Laws does not seem to have based his judgement on the rightness or otherwise of homosexuality - indeed that has not come into it. So Mr Macfarlane would presumably not be required to show that his morality was 'superior' to that which either tolerates or promotes homosexuality. The basis of the judge's argument is not the merits of the content of Christian morality but its lack, apparently, of objective grounds.
8. Are we at the stage therefore where we have to be prepared to go to court in such matters prepared to 'prove' the 'truth' of Christianity (a matter on which Dr Nazir -Ali gives a few useful hints)? Surely courts are not qualified to judge such matters!Surely judges would not want to try! Could courts be flooded with church historians, theologians, philosophers and Christians with a testimony wheeled in as expert witnesses? But how else can one show the objective validity of a faith? Laws LJ presumably thinks no religion could ever do that. In a sense he is right; one can produce evidence for its goodness and usefulness, in principle and in history, and why should not that be allowed? However it would not amount to the establishing of an objective basis for the morality. Could evidence ever do more than show that the morality was practically beneficial? Could anything less than the proof of God's existence ultimately satisfy Laws LJ's test in the Macfarlane case? And is any court seriously going to want to try to adjudicate that?
9. But then - what objective basis ultimately is there for any value system? If Laws LJ were asked to provide objective, rational criteria by which his own presumably secular morality could be established - from where would it come? Does not the quest for all 'objectivity' finally resolve itself into a faith issue?
10. In conclusion, a fascinating bundle of questions is being raised by these cases and it is hoped that this will go to a higher court - which would have to be the Supreme Court. Left as it is, Laws LJ seems to have left the protection of religous rights, even to worship, quite apart from the practice of Christian principles in the work-place, without a foundation that the law would recognise. This would seem to undermine some fundamental and widely entrenched rights legislation in Europe. Did he mean to go that far? He has also left all rights in a state of uncertainty - for what is the objective basis for any protection of rights? What is the objective basis for example for freedom of speech? Or the right of association?
11.It also leaves Christians able to hold their faith privately but unable to express it publicly in any situation where it comes into conflict with popular mores, without fear of legal sanctions. Whether or not we call this persecution, it is certainly creating an environment in which persecution is inevitable.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Banner 2010
Thanks to the Banner of Truth Trust for organising another fine conference for ministers at Leicester (April 26-29).
We had a winsome start from Wyn Hughes (Cardiff) reminding us from Romans 1:17 of why we value the gospel. O. Palmer Robertson gave us a treat with three very different but equally spell-binding addresses. The first was on prayer, introducing us to Matthew Henry's 'A Method for Prayer', which Palmer is revising for publication in modern format next year. This should be an invaluable resource to refresh our sometimes tired public prayers and indeed our private praying. The second address was a wonderful biography of a missionary of whom no-one had heard - William Hoppe Murray - in what is now Malawi in the early 20th Century. The 10-fold challenge of this man was powerful, but his humanity was as attractive and inspired us without depressing us. Thirdly came a fine call to preach the gospel to all nations, reminding us that the 'mystery' of the gospel, now revealed, was not just that the gospel was for Gentiles, but that it was for Gentiles on equal terms with the Jew. There is no advantage, in terms of salvation, in being a Jew now, he said - see his 'The Israel of God' for more on this excellent and refreshing approach to the issue of Israel today.
Iain D. Campbell gave two stirring addresses on the Lord's Day.The first was a biblical -panoramic survey of the sabbath rest, something Iain does so well as he brings the whole Bible to bear on his subject. Some may have wished for a bit more exegetical detail and support for his main argument in the second address - that the Lord's Day still stands. But for those convinced it was a fine exhortation on the potential and hope for the Lord's Day.
Ted Donnelly closed with a moving sermon on Peter's response to the Lord after the resurrection - 'Lord you know everything' - John 21:15-17. It was a heartwarming and encouraging way to end the conference.
As well as all this there was the usual good fellowship and renewed acquaintances. A good four days which always goes all too quickly each year.
We had a winsome start from Wyn Hughes (Cardiff) reminding us from Romans 1:17 of why we value the gospel. O. Palmer Robertson gave us a treat with three very different but equally spell-binding addresses. The first was on prayer, introducing us to Matthew Henry's 'A Method for Prayer', which Palmer is revising for publication in modern format next year. This should be an invaluable resource to refresh our sometimes tired public prayers and indeed our private praying. The second address was a wonderful biography of a missionary of whom no-one had heard - William Hoppe Murray - in what is now Malawi in the early 20th Century. The 10-fold challenge of this man was powerful, but his humanity was as attractive and inspired us without depressing us. Thirdly came a fine call to preach the gospel to all nations, reminding us that the 'mystery' of the gospel, now revealed, was not just that the gospel was for Gentiles, but that it was for Gentiles on equal terms with the Jew. There is no advantage, in terms of salvation, in being a Jew now, he said - see his 'The Israel of God' for more on this excellent and refreshing approach to the issue of Israel today.
Iain D. Campbell gave two stirring addresses on the Lord's Day.The first was a biblical -panoramic survey of the sabbath rest, something Iain does so well as he brings the whole Bible to bear on his subject. Some may have wished for a bit more exegetical detail and support for his main argument in the second address - that the Lord's Day still stands. But for those convinced it was a fine exhortation on the potential and hope for the Lord's Day.
Ted Donnelly closed with a moving sermon on Peter's response to the Lord after the resurrection - 'Lord you know everything' - John 21:15-17. It was a heartwarming and encouraging way to end the conference.
As well as all this there was the usual good fellowship and renewed acquaintances. A good four days which always goes all too quickly each year.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
The Obedience of Christ
We are familiar with the glorious truth of Christ's obedience. We are familiar too with the traditional dual description of his obedience as 'active' and 'passive'. By active, is meant what he actively 'did'; by 'passive' is meant what he 'suffered'.
Just about anyone, however, who tries to think or write seriously about the atonement, while using these descriptions, finds them at best inadequate, at worst thoroughly misleading. In 'The Atonement' for example, Hugh Martin speaks of 'the unhappy and not very intelligible expression, "Christ's active and passsive obedience"' and after rather grudgingly allowing the phrase with suitable explanations he continues, 'But it may be safely doubted whether the phrase 'passive obedience' naturally indicates anything that can be properly called obedience at all...'" (p 81). The etymology of the word 'passive' from the Latin for 'suffering' means little to most of us today and even if it does, it does not help theologically.
Let me suggest at least three reasons why 'active' and 'passive' are poor adjectives to use:
1. They obviously suggest that some of Christ's obedience was 'passive',that is, he suffered and endured to some extent involuntarily. This is quite untrue. All of Christ's obedience was active, or it would not have been obedience.
2. It inevitably causes us to think in terms of a place or point where his obedience stopped being active and began to be passive. This is not essential to the terms, as they can of course apply to two kinds of obedience running concurrently through his life and death. Nonetheless, the tendency fostered by this nomenclature is to think of the cross as something inherently passive and the rest of Christ's life as active. This is a flawed way of thinking of the work of Christ. Christ's death on the cross was active self-offering, victorious throughout; 'Into thy hands O Lord I commend my spirit.' Moreover, he 'endured' from the moment of his birth.
3. The descriptions 'active' and 'passive' bear no relation to that which obedience is reflective of - the law of God. They suggest that there were times when the will of Christ was active, other times when it was quiescent, though Christ was always 'willing' throughout his obedience. But these words tell us nothing theological or even biblical about his obedience.
What is needed is a description of his work that reflects its twofold aspect accurately.
This means that it should reflect the fact that all of Christ's obedience was in relation to the law of God. Further, some of his suffering was in relation to the precepts of God, to provide a perfect, personal and perpetual obedience for his people; and part of Christ's obedience was in relation to the sanction, or penalty, of God's law, namely death in all its forms.
Why cannot we therefore use universally the words preceptive to decscribe Christ's obedience so far as it was providing a righteousness in obedience to the law; and penal to describe what he suffered in relation to the penalty of the law? These words are hardly new but could surely be adopted more widely. This preceptive-penal obedience of Christ ran through his whole life from conception to grave embracing all his self-offering, his priestly act on our behalf, in all he did and endured at every moment of his life. These words accurately describe what his suffering was all about, unlike the present active-passive description which only misleads.
I propose...the adoption of these terms.
If not passed - I shall continue to use them myself anyway!
Just about anyone, however, who tries to think or write seriously about the atonement, while using these descriptions, finds them at best inadequate, at worst thoroughly misleading. In 'The Atonement' for example, Hugh Martin speaks of 'the unhappy and not very intelligible expression, "Christ's active and passsive obedience"' and after rather grudgingly allowing the phrase with suitable explanations he continues, 'But it may be safely doubted whether the phrase 'passive obedience' naturally indicates anything that can be properly called obedience at all...'" (p 81). The etymology of the word 'passive' from the Latin for 'suffering' means little to most of us today and even if it does, it does not help theologically.
Let me suggest at least three reasons why 'active' and 'passive' are poor adjectives to use:
1. They obviously suggest that some of Christ's obedience was 'passive',that is, he suffered and endured to some extent involuntarily. This is quite untrue. All of Christ's obedience was active, or it would not have been obedience.
2. It inevitably causes us to think in terms of a place or point where his obedience stopped being active and began to be passive. This is not essential to the terms, as they can of course apply to two kinds of obedience running concurrently through his life and death. Nonetheless, the tendency fostered by this nomenclature is to think of the cross as something inherently passive and the rest of Christ's life as active. This is a flawed way of thinking of the work of Christ. Christ's death on the cross was active self-offering, victorious throughout; 'Into thy hands O Lord I commend my spirit.' Moreover, he 'endured' from the moment of his birth.
3. The descriptions 'active' and 'passive' bear no relation to that which obedience is reflective of - the law of God. They suggest that there were times when the will of Christ was active, other times when it was quiescent, though Christ was always 'willing' throughout his obedience. But these words tell us nothing theological or even biblical about his obedience.
What is needed is a description of his work that reflects its twofold aspect accurately.
This means that it should reflect the fact that all of Christ's obedience was in relation to the law of God. Further, some of his suffering was in relation to the precepts of God, to provide a perfect, personal and perpetual obedience for his people; and part of Christ's obedience was in relation to the sanction, or penalty, of God's law, namely death in all its forms.
Why cannot we therefore use universally the words preceptive to decscribe Christ's obedience so far as it was providing a righteousness in obedience to the law; and penal to describe what he suffered in relation to the penalty of the law? These words are hardly new but could surely be adopted more widely. This preceptive-penal obedience of Christ ran through his whole life from conception to grave embracing all his self-offering, his priestly act on our behalf, in all he did and endured at every moment of his life. These words accurately describe what his suffering was all about, unlike the present active-passive description which only misleads.
I propose...the adoption of these terms.
If not passed - I shall continue to use them myself anyway!
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
The Blunderbuss Effect
There is a security camera in our village.
Now Welwyn is not perfect and I am sure that even in this rather sleepy quarter of middle Hertfordshire there are some (dare I say it) criminals and (yes, even) louts. But we are not a city centre; we are not Birmingham, London or Manchester. Gracious me, we are not even Welwyn Garden City, where there are, if they will pardon me saying it, probably hives of yobbos. The front page of our local paper last week was celebrating a police 'swoop' on a noisy neighbour. That is how bad things are getting around here.
Nonetheless - Welwyn has a security camera.
Did I say 'a' camera?
I should say cameras. Four of them. On one tall black pole near the bridge over the River Mimram. Two looking down the street, one examining the bridge and the other scrutinizing a car-park.
Mind you, we should count ourselves lucky. Statistics tell us that there is one CCTV camera for every 14 people in Britain (yes, about 4 million of them) so in Welwyn we should have about 250 'public eyes'. Perhaps I just haven't seen them yet.
Because, therefore, of a small minority of potential disturbers of the peace, the rest of us have our potterings and perambulations, our wanderings and our window shopping, our chattings and conversations all recorded on a camera which probably feeds a small screen in some dingy security firm or police office. As a friend in the village said - 'It makes you feel you have to behave'. Exactly. It is that sense of 'Big Brother' which is so intrusive, the authoritarian wet blanket taking the edge off the enjoyment of a hitherto self-regulated freedom.
It is part too of the blunderbuss effect. A blunderbuss is an old type of firearm which, unlike a rifle with one bullet more or less accurately aimed, fires a load of shot over a wide area. One of the features of modern life is deprivation or inconvenience suffered by the many on account of the few. For example, because of a tiny minority of extremists who may want to blow up a plane, millions have to endure tedious security checks. Because of the small minority of real paedophiles, millions have to be treated as potential criminals and put up with endless bureacracy. Because of a few vicious dogs, it was even suggested that all dog owners should pay insurance in case their dog attacked someone. Thankfully that has been dropped.
From another perspective, because of a small minority of people who want to practise a gay lifestyle, millions of us have to fight not to have our children taught that perversion is normal. Not the same as catching potential criminals but still a minority imposing on a majority.
Is the blunderbuss really necessary? Is it necessary to spread the net wide enough to catch everybody, in order to apprehend the few? Or is it just the easiest way? Will the determined terrorist or paedophile or yobbo be caught like this? I suppose some will point to CCTV evidence which has helped convict some criminals, but was it the only evidence? Was it crucial?
Perhaps the price of greater (if not absolute) security is the reduction of freedom. Maybe Welwyn has to have a (sorry,four) CCTV cameras to survey a short High Street. Maybe we will have to behave. And maybe Big Brother will keep us all safe. But I can't help feeling something has died as, on my way home, I ruefully return the steely gaze of the fourfold unblinking Cyclops.
Now Welwyn is not perfect and I am sure that even in this rather sleepy quarter of middle Hertfordshire there are some (dare I say it) criminals and (yes, even) louts. But we are not a city centre; we are not Birmingham, London or Manchester. Gracious me, we are not even Welwyn Garden City, where there are, if they will pardon me saying it, probably hives of yobbos. The front page of our local paper last week was celebrating a police 'swoop' on a noisy neighbour. That is how bad things are getting around here.
Nonetheless - Welwyn has a security camera.
Did I say 'a' camera?
I should say cameras. Four of them. On one tall black pole near the bridge over the River Mimram. Two looking down the street, one examining the bridge and the other scrutinizing a car-park.
Mind you, we should count ourselves lucky. Statistics tell us that there is one CCTV camera for every 14 people in Britain (yes, about 4 million of them) so in Welwyn we should have about 250 'public eyes'. Perhaps I just haven't seen them yet.
Because, therefore, of a small minority of potential disturbers of the peace, the rest of us have our potterings and perambulations, our wanderings and our window shopping, our chattings and conversations all recorded on a camera which probably feeds a small screen in some dingy security firm or police office. As a friend in the village said - 'It makes you feel you have to behave'. Exactly. It is that sense of 'Big Brother' which is so intrusive, the authoritarian wet blanket taking the edge off the enjoyment of a hitherto self-regulated freedom.
It is part too of the blunderbuss effect. A blunderbuss is an old type of firearm which, unlike a rifle with one bullet more or less accurately aimed, fires a load of shot over a wide area. One of the features of modern life is deprivation or inconvenience suffered by the many on account of the few. For example, because of a tiny minority of extremists who may want to blow up a plane, millions have to endure tedious security checks. Because of the small minority of real paedophiles, millions have to be treated as potential criminals and put up with endless bureacracy. Because of a few vicious dogs, it was even suggested that all dog owners should pay insurance in case their dog attacked someone. Thankfully that has been dropped.
From another perspective, because of a small minority of people who want to practise a gay lifestyle, millions of us have to fight not to have our children taught that perversion is normal. Not the same as catching potential criminals but still a minority imposing on a majority.
Is the blunderbuss really necessary? Is it necessary to spread the net wide enough to catch everybody, in order to apprehend the few? Or is it just the easiest way? Will the determined terrorist or paedophile or yobbo be caught like this? I suppose some will point to CCTV evidence which has helped convict some criminals, but was it the only evidence? Was it crucial?
Perhaps the price of greater (if not absolute) security is the reduction of freedom. Maybe Welwyn has to have a (sorry,four) CCTV cameras to survey a short High Street. Maybe we will have to behave. And maybe Big Brother will keep us all safe. But I can't help feeling something has died as, on my way home, I ruefully return the steely gaze of the fourfold unblinking Cyclops.
L'Abri Ideas library
To mention Francis Schaeffer these days is a slightly unnerving experience. There are those who will warm to you immediately; young people, on the other hand, tend not to know who you are talking about; and some older Reformed types purse their lips and raise an eyebrow in silent disapproval; or is it pity?
Nonetheless I am glad to be able to publicise a new venture on the L'Abri website - www.labri.org - called the 'L'Abri Ideas library'. They have made available 1000 recorded lectures from over the last 50 years and many are available for free download. Many of the lectures are by Dr Schaeffer himself. There are Bible studies, sermons and lectures on all manner of subjects from a Christian perspective.
Just visit the above website and go to 'Resources'.
Well worth a visit - even if you may not want to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' with all the lecturers.
For Schaeffer aficionados it promises a real treat.
On a personal note, if you want to hear a lecture I gave at the Evangelical Library three years ago on Schaeffer, the EL may still have recordings available. I spoke of my personal encounter with Schaeffer many (!) years ago and his impact on me, and evaluated him as an evangelist, pastor, prophet and communicator.
Nonetheless I am glad to be able to publicise a new venture on the L'Abri website - www.labri.org - called the 'L'Abri Ideas library'. They have made available 1000 recorded lectures from over the last 50 years and many are available for free download. Many of the lectures are by Dr Schaeffer himself. There are Bible studies, sermons and lectures on all manner of subjects from a Christian perspective.
Just visit the above website and go to 'Resources'.
Well worth a visit - even if you may not want to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' with all the lecturers.
For Schaeffer aficionados it promises a real treat.
On a personal note, if you want to hear a lecture I gave at the Evangelical Library three years ago on Schaeffer, the EL may still have recordings available. I spoke of my personal encounter with Schaeffer many (!) years ago and his impact on me, and evaluated him as an evangelist, pastor, prophet and communicator.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
John Piper and the covenant of works
John Piper does not believe in a covenant of works.
Now to some that will sound like the cry of Chicken Licken who thought the sky was falling in because an acorn dropped on his head. 'You may think its worth shouting about but - who else really cares?'
Well,quite a lot of people do judging by various websites. But stop - let's go back -what exactly is the covenant of works anyway? Then we can work out if it's worth bothering about John Piper's denial of it.
The covenant of works is what Reformed theologians have generally held to be the arrangement under which God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden. For example, the Westminster Confession Chapter 7 para 2 says: 'The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience'. Equally important is the previous paragraph which states that, although we owe God obedience as creatures, because the distance between God and us is so great, for us to enjoy blessedness and reward required a further step from God to man, a 'voluntary condescension' which God 'has been pleased to express by way of covenant'. Even the first covenant was an act of freely given kindness; whether this is best called 'grace' is doubtful as it risks confusion of the pre-Fall arrangement with God's kindness to sinners for which the word grace is reserved in Scripture. See further below.
When Adam fell, and all mankind in him, God made a second covenant called the covenant of grace in which salvation is offered to sinners freely in Christ through faith. This covenant is revealed in Genesis 3:15.
Now nobody claims that the word 'covenant' appears in Genesis 1-3 and other names have been suggested for the 'agreement' with Adam - covenant of 'nature' or 'creation' for example. Nonetheless theologians have insisted that the elements of a covenant are there between God and Adam and the terms of it were eternal life for perfect obedience. Adam, even if he had access to the tree of life during his time in Eden, (which some assert and others deny) was subject to change in himself, with a possibility of sinning and under a prohibition which indicated that his tenure in God's favour was 'losable' - not a condition compatible with an eternally blessed state. Moreover it showed that the condition of permanent enjoyment of eternal life was perfect obedience. By his one act of disobedience, Adam lost everything for himself and his posterity (Rom 5:19).
In short, he was a representative man, on 'probation' and in covenant.
It is Romans 5:12f which also shows us the remedy for Adam's fall: the Second Adam, Christ, by his one act of obedience, provided what Adam lost. In other words he fulfilled the covenant of works (which some say is reflected for example in such New Testament passages as Romans 2:6-11; or Matthew 19:17 in Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler; which both promise life for obedience).
Now what is the problem with denying a covenant of works?
Simply, you threaten the gospel. The Romans 5 parallel between Adam and Christ is central to our understanding of how Christ provides salvation. It is about obedience overwriting disobedience. That obedience was called for because there was an unsatisfied covenant - that of 'works', with Adam. The condition of blessing had not been fulfilled. God did not change what he had instituted; he provided a Person who could fulfil that covenant.
Another way of looking at this is the relationship between Law and Gospel. The covenant of works is 'Law' as a way of obtaining eternal life; the covenant of grace is 'gospel'. But the difference is not in the terms of the covenant so much as in the person performing them. Each human being owes God 100% obedience as Adam did; because of sin in us from conception we are unable to offer that - if Adam failed how much more will we; but Christ is the Second Adam to provide obedience where we fail.
What does John Piper say? In an extract from A Godward Life (pages 172-73) we read: 'What made Adam's sin so evil was that God showed him unmerited favour and offered himself to Adam as an everlasting Father to be trusted in all his counsel for Adam's good'. OK? Well, just, but it does sound a bit like gospel.
Again,'The command [in the garden] was that Adam trust God's goodness'. Was it? Was it not that Adam should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Trusting in God's goodness was a precondition, but was not the 'command'.
Again,'Adam's test was whether he would prove the trustworthiness of God in reckoning God more to be desired than the prospect of Satan's favour'. It is beginning to sound as if 'desiring God' has become a 'Procrustean bed' squeezing everything into its mould.
Again 'There was no hint that Adam was to earn or deserve. The atmosphere was one of testing faith in unmerited favour, not testing willingness to earn or merit'. Now hold on - we are slipping into something here. Who ever said that Adam was being tested on his willingness to earn or merit? He was being tested on his readiness to obey freely his Creator, out of no other motive than that his Creator said so.
Again, 'The command of God was for the obedience that comes from faith...Christ rendered to God the obedience that Adam forsook. He fulfilled the Law perfectly in the way the Law was meant to be fulfilled, not by works, but by faith (Rom 9:32). Thus he obtained life for his people not by wages, but by fulfilling the conditions of a faithful Son'.
Now - what does it mean to fulfil the Law 'by works' anyway? You either fulfil it or you don't. No-one denies that faith is a precondition of fulfilling the Law. But the Law still has to be fulfilled perfectly. The issue is plain obedience. We are 'made sinners' by one act of disobedience and 'justified' by one act of 'obedience' - Rom 5:19.
It seems as if Piper is assuming an equation between 'justification by works' which is the covenant of works, with a slavish, post-Fall, notion of merit. There is a big difference between, on the one hand, lovingly obeying perfectly and being rewarded for it which was the reasonable condition of eternal life imposed on Adam in Eden, and which the Lord Jesus performed, which is rightly termed 'merit' in the Reformed Confessions, for example,; and, on the other, the notion of 'slavish' merit which is the speciality of Judaizers,the medieval church and every self-justifying sinner who has walked the earth. The idea of 'fulfilling the Law by works' seems to suggest that this is the only fulfilling of the law Piper can envisage apart from the grace of the gospel. But then - who fulfilled the law for the gospel to become possible? Jesus.
Piper goes on to discuss Romans 2:7-10. The two main interpretations are that God's 'giving eternal life' to perseverance in doing good, means either(i) that this is a promise to anyone on the basis of works but no-one actually will acheive this because we are sinnners; or (ii) that this is a description of a Christian whose change of life is being evidenced by the Holy Spirit creating obedience in his life. This latter interpretation is what is preferred by Piper, and other exegetes prefer it too. Apart however from the fact that in this part of Romans the discussion of man's obedience 'as man',is far more in context, what seems to be the reason for Piper's rejection of the former interpretation is telling: namely that 'God never promised eternal life on the basis of good deeds but always makes good deeds the evidence of faith...'.
So - the covenant of works is again denied.
Problem? Grace is in effect taken back into and behind the arrangement with unfallen Adam and the distinction between the covenants of works and of grace is flattened out. In this case what did the Fall effect? Was the curse mere chastisement? Or real damnation for all who now fail to maintain the covenant of works?
It is interesting too that the covenant of works is also denied by proponents of Federal Vision, with a similar flattening out of the covenants and a dislike of anything that smacks of 'merit'. They also distort the meaning of biblical covenants... but that is another story.
Does the covenant of works matter? Maybe we could even concede that the phrase in itself could be changed; but the reality is essential for maintaining the distinction of Law and Gospel, for understanding the work of Christ,the parallel between the first amd last Adams, justification by faith and the provision of imputed righteousness. To deny it puts a question mark over the definition of sin and blurs the requirement for perfect righteousness. It is strange that John Piper who has written so helpfully on justification and imputation takes a stance here that threatens to undermine both.
Now to some that will sound like the cry of Chicken Licken who thought the sky was falling in because an acorn dropped on his head. 'You may think its worth shouting about but - who else really cares?'
Well,quite a lot of people do judging by various websites. But stop - let's go back -what exactly is the covenant of works anyway? Then we can work out if it's worth bothering about John Piper's denial of it.
The covenant of works is what Reformed theologians have generally held to be the arrangement under which God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden. For example, the Westminster Confession Chapter 7 para 2 says: 'The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience'. Equally important is the previous paragraph which states that, although we owe God obedience as creatures, because the distance between God and us is so great, for us to enjoy blessedness and reward required a further step from God to man, a 'voluntary condescension' which God 'has been pleased to express by way of covenant'. Even the first covenant was an act of freely given kindness; whether this is best called 'grace' is doubtful as it risks confusion of the pre-Fall arrangement with God's kindness to sinners for which the word grace is reserved in Scripture. See further below.
When Adam fell, and all mankind in him, God made a second covenant called the covenant of grace in which salvation is offered to sinners freely in Christ through faith. This covenant is revealed in Genesis 3:15.
Now nobody claims that the word 'covenant' appears in Genesis 1-3 and other names have been suggested for the 'agreement' with Adam - covenant of 'nature' or 'creation' for example. Nonetheless theologians have insisted that the elements of a covenant are there between God and Adam and the terms of it were eternal life for perfect obedience. Adam, even if he had access to the tree of life during his time in Eden, (which some assert and others deny) was subject to change in himself, with a possibility of sinning and under a prohibition which indicated that his tenure in God's favour was 'losable' - not a condition compatible with an eternally blessed state. Moreover it showed that the condition of permanent enjoyment of eternal life was perfect obedience. By his one act of disobedience, Adam lost everything for himself and his posterity (Rom 5:19).
In short, he was a representative man, on 'probation' and in covenant.
It is Romans 5:12f which also shows us the remedy for Adam's fall: the Second Adam, Christ, by his one act of obedience, provided what Adam lost. In other words he fulfilled the covenant of works (which some say is reflected for example in such New Testament passages as Romans 2:6-11; or Matthew 19:17 in Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler; which both promise life for obedience).
Now what is the problem with denying a covenant of works?
Simply, you threaten the gospel. The Romans 5 parallel between Adam and Christ is central to our understanding of how Christ provides salvation. It is about obedience overwriting disobedience. That obedience was called for because there was an unsatisfied covenant - that of 'works', with Adam. The condition of blessing had not been fulfilled. God did not change what he had instituted; he provided a Person who could fulfil that covenant.
Another way of looking at this is the relationship between Law and Gospel. The covenant of works is 'Law' as a way of obtaining eternal life; the covenant of grace is 'gospel'. But the difference is not in the terms of the covenant so much as in the person performing them. Each human being owes God 100% obedience as Adam did; because of sin in us from conception we are unable to offer that - if Adam failed how much more will we; but Christ is the Second Adam to provide obedience where we fail.
What does John Piper say? In an extract from A Godward Life (pages 172-73) we read: 'What made Adam's sin so evil was that God showed him unmerited favour and offered himself to Adam as an everlasting Father to be trusted in all his counsel for Adam's good'. OK? Well, just, but it does sound a bit like gospel.
Again,'The command [in the garden] was that Adam trust God's goodness'. Was it? Was it not that Adam should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Trusting in God's goodness was a precondition, but was not the 'command'.
Again,'Adam's test was whether he would prove the trustworthiness of God in reckoning God more to be desired than the prospect of Satan's favour'. It is beginning to sound as if 'desiring God' has become a 'Procrustean bed' squeezing everything into its mould.
Again 'There was no hint that Adam was to earn or deserve. The atmosphere was one of testing faith in unmerited favour, not testing willingness to earn or merit'. Now hold on - we are slipping into something here. Who ever said that Adam was being tested on his willingness to earn or merit? He was being tested on his readiness to obey freely his Creator, out of no other motive than that his Creator said so.
Again, 'The command of God was for the obedience that comes from faith...Christ rendered to God the obedience that Adam forsook. He fulfilled the Law perfectly in the way the Law was meant to be fulfilled, not by works, but by faith (Rom 9:32). Thus he obtained life for his people not by wages, but by fulfilling the conditions of a faithful Son'.
Now - what does it mean to fulfil the Law 'by works' anyway? You either fulfil it or you don't. No-one denies that faith is a precondition of fulfilling the Law. But the Law still has to be fulfilled perfectly. The issue is plain obedience. We are 'made sinners' by one act of disobedience and 'justified' by one act of 'obedience' - Rom 5:19.
It seems as if Piper is assuming an equation between 'justification by works' which is the covenant of works, with a slavish, post-Fall, notion of merit. There is a big difference between, on the one hand, lovingly obeying perfectly and being rewarded for it which was the reasonable condition of eternal life imposed on Adam in Eden, and which the Lord Jesus performed, which is rightly termed 'merit' in the Reformed Confessions, for example,; and, on the other, the notion of 'slavish' merit which is the speciality of Judaizers,the medieval church and every self-justifying sinner who has walked the earth. The idea of 'fulfilling the Law by works' seems to suggest that this is the only fulfilling of the law Piper can envisage apart from the grace of the gospel. But then - who fulfilled the law for the gospel to become possible? Jesus.
Piper goes on to discuss Romans 2:7-10. The two main interpretations are that God's 'giving eternal life' to perseverance in doing good, means either(i) that this is a promise to anyone on the basis of works but no-one actually will acheive this because we are sinnners; or (ii) that this is a description of a Christian whose change of life is being evidenced by the Holy Spirit creating obedience in his life. This latter interpretation is what is preferred by Piper, and other exegetes prefer it too. Apart however from the fact that in this part of Romans the discussion of man's obedience 'as man',is far more in context, what seems to be the reason for Piper's rejection of the former interpretation is telling: namely that 'God never promised eternal life on the basis of good deeds but always makes good deeds the evidence of faith...'.
So - the covenant of works is again denied.
Problem? Grace is in effect taken back into and behind the arrangement with unfallen Adam and the distinction between the covenants of works and of grace is flattened out. In this case what did the Fall effect? Was the curse mere chastisement? Or real damnation for all who now fail to maintain the covenant of works?
It is interesting too that the covenant of works is also denied by proponents of Federal Vision, with a similar flattening out of the covenants and a dislike of anything that smacks of 'merit'. They also distort the meaning of biblical covenants... but that is another story.
Does the covenant of works matter? Maybe we could even concede that the phrase in itself could be changed; but the reality is essential for maintaining the distinction of Law and Gospel, for understanding the work of Christ,the parallel between the first amd last Adams, justification by faith and the provision of imputed righteousness. To deny it puts a question mark over the definition of sin and blurs the requirement for perfect righteousness. It is strange that John Piper who has written so helpfully on justification and imputation takes a stance here that threatens to undermine both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)