My favourite Puritan on the Atonement

Satisfaction for sin, it must be in that nature that hath sinned. Now man of himself could not satisfy divine justice, being a finite person; therefore God the second person became man, that in our nature he might satisfy God’s wrath for us, and so free us by giving payment to his divine justice. The death of Christ, God-man, is the price of our liberty and freedom.

Richard Sibbes, Expositions of St. Paul (= Works, vol. 5), p. 237

Thinking about the Trinity and the Cross

The first word in the title must be borne in mind when reading this post: “thinking”. I am not issuing dogma or presenting the fruit of much deep consideration. I am starting a discussion which I pray will benefit all as we seek to understand the cross, adore our God for it, and preach it to others.

Right, here we go then…

When considering Jesus’ cry of dereliction on the cross, as he suffers punishment in the place of his people and faces the wrath his people deserve, it has recently been presented to me as some kind of temporary disruption in the Trinity, a rupture in the perfect community of the Godhead. I can see how that might serve to magnify in our eyes the cost of sin and our God’s love for us, and that this would be desirable.

But is it quite right?

One big implication of this would surely to be to admit change within God, which is inconsistent with Scripture (e.g. Psalm 102.27, Malachi 3.6, Hebrews 13.8, James 1.17) and which would severly affect whether or not God was dependable. Is this something where we need to remember that in Jesus, we encounter one person in whom are united two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, so that the one person of Jesus relates to God the Father through two natures? In that case, may we then say that it is in his human nature that Jesus is our representative and substitute on the cross and becomes sin for us, and is forsaken by God the Father, but in his divine nature, the perfect life of the Trinity continues uninterruptedly? Or would that be to separate the divine and human natures excessively and drift in the direction of Nestorianism? I do want to maintain that Jesus was working in both natures to effect our salvation, otherwise, there would be no point in the Incarnation.

I do not want to bring myself under the anathemas of the Quiqunque vult!

We ♥ Oak Hill!

Click HERE for a really excellent series of Oak Hill Evening Lectures on the Person and Work of Christ by Dr. Michael Ovey.

First of all, Dr. Ovey gives a robust defence of the practice of systematic theology, before considering how we do Christology (neither ‘from above’ or ‘from below’ but ‘from within’ the context of the expectation of Scripture. Dr. Ovey makes it clear that Old Testament promise envisages one who is both divine and human, and then proceeds to discuss this lucidly in terms of the two natures of Christ, divine and human, united in the one person, particularly with reference to the Chalcedonian Definition of 451AD. He refutes the traditional Christological heresies (e.g. modalism, Nestorianism etc.) and throughout shows how this is consistent with the testimony of Scripture. He then proceeds to discuss the Incarnation and its purpose, and shows why contemporary interpretations (e.g. that Christ is co-sufferer or that Christ is the consummation of creation - so the Incarnation would have happened anyway) which have arisen as a result of the idea that the Reformation placed too much emphasis on the Cross, are not satisfactory when the Biblical testimony is taken into account. Finally, Dr. Ovey starts the first of a number of lectures on the three traditional offices of Christ with a consideration of Christ’s role as prophet, revealing God’s will and God himself to us, and also revealing ourselves to us.

The lectures on Christ as King and Priest are given by Dr. Daniel Strange and Dr. David Field - put them up soon please, Oak Hill!