Did God Die on the Cross?

In the past month I've been asked a peculiar question some three times: "Did God die when Jesus died on the cross?" Why this question is peaking right now is elusive to me (and maybe it's just a coincidence), but it is apparently a point of some debate, and worthy of reflection. It also seems to be a good occasion for highlighting the inadequacy of biblical theology in addressing such thorny questions.

It is a real disappointment to me that many of the major systematic theologies do not address this concern (Grudem is a notable exception to this generalization--see below). I'm further disappointed that some of the more prominent explanations I have found are in fact hesitant to harmonize the raw biblical data, and are satisfied instead to relegate the problem to the box of biblical enigmas. Note, for instance, the following:

• John MacArthur, in a Q/A session at his church (and, yes, I do make allowance for the fact that this is an old comment made extemporaneously), answered the question whether God died on the cross by saying, "We have to say yes. Because Jesus died on the cross and Jesus was God. And, death, basically, means what? Separation from God. Was Jesus separated from God? 'My God, My God, why hast thou what? Forsaken me?' He was separated from God. He died. And, the Bible says He died, over and over, and over, and over, and over, doesn’t it? He died. He died. He died, and He was Jesus Christ. You cannot separate Jesus Christ’s humanness from His deity. You cannot cut Him up. He was Jesus Christ, the God-man and He died. So, yes, God died on the cross. Now, how you separate one member of the Trinity from the rest, I don't know, but I do not really worry about it because if God expected me to know it, He would have told me, or given me the ability to think it through, and I haven't. All I know is, He did die on the cross. He was separated from the Father, and, yet, one with the Father, and I don't understand that, and I am not going to be worried about not understanding it."
• D. A. Carson opines similarly in his commentary on Matthew (p. 579): "It is better to take the words [of Matt 27:46] at face value: Jesus is conscious of being abandoned by his Father. For one who knew the intimacy of Matthew 11:27, such abandonment must have been agony and for the same reason it is inadequate to hypothesize that Jesus felt abandoned but was not truly abandoned.... If we ask in what ontological sense the Father and the Son are here divided, the answer must be that we do not know because we are not told."

Now I certainly respect the fact that these outstanding thinkers are unwilling to speculate on issues that they have not investigated thoroughly. That's a mark of humility. But at the same time, I wonder whether the best course of action for the church is to lay out Scriptures that seem to be in conflict with the whole counsel of God and make no attempt at resolution. Our theology must correspond at all times with the Bible, to be sure, but it must also cohere internally. And when incoherence arises, we cannot let the incoherence lie. Instead, we must press for resolution, asking and answering questions such as

• How can we harmonize the death of Christ with the fact that as immortal God, Christ necessarily possessed "indestructible life" (Heb 7:16)?
• How could the immutable perichoresis of the Trinity (John 14:10-11) survive ontological separation without God ceasing to be what he eternally is?
• How can God in Christ be said to lay down and especially to take up his life (John 2:19, 10:17-18) if, in fact, he is dead?
• On the other hand, how can Christ's death atone for the many without the impeccability and infinitude that his Godness supplies?
• What exactly would death look like for God? Annihilation? Loss of consciousness as God? a Trinitarian breach of identity?

The answers to such questions are not easy. But we must answer them if (in this case) we are to keep from confounding the two natures of Christ and allowing his humanity to overwhelm his deity. Christ as God was independent; Christ as man was hungry and tired. Christ as God was omniscient; Christ as man grew in wisdom and even late in his ministry lacked intuitive knowledge of certain facts; Christ as God cannot be tempted; Christ as man was tempted most sorely; and Christ as God is immortal, while Christ as man could and did die. His person remained undivided and his natures remained unconfounded.

The details of this arrangement are surely difficult, and on occasions we need to say, "I don't understand." But offering interpretations that are hopelessly conflicted and then opining that "this can't be understood" seems reckless and antithetical to the whole point of revelation. It's the kind of "stuff" that tends to result in heresy. Much more satisfying and prudent is Wayne Grudem's assessment:

In his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor. 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19, 10:17-18; Heb.7:16).... It is not correct to say that Jesus' divine nature died, or could die, if "die" means a cessation of activity, a cessation of consciousness, or a diminution of power. Nevertheless, by virtue of union with Jesus’ human nature, his divine nature somehow tasted something of what it was like to go through death. The person of Christ experienced death. Moreover it seems that Jesus' divine nature had somehow to participate in the bearing of wrath against sin that was due to us (though Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms this). Therefore, even though Jesus' divine nature did not actually die, Jesus went through the experience of death as a whole person, and both human and divine natures somehow shared in that experience.

MAS

May God Be "With" You, Part 2

Having opined in the last post that prayers for God to "be with" people are often little more than cliché prayer talk attended, if at all, by dubious or even spurious theology, we turn now to the proper expectation of God "being with" his people. It can be appropriate to pray for God to "be with" us, so long as we pray, as Paul says, with understanding.

(1) We made the case in the previous post that God's presence uniformly "fills heaven and earth" (Jer 23:24), extending even to the netherworld (Ps 139:8-9). [Aside: R. C. Sproul makes a sound case that the greatest horror of hell is not God's absence, but his presence--see his The Truth of the Cross (Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2007), pp. 157-158.] But there is a sense in which God is "in heaven" (Matt 6:9) in a way he is not on earth. He is "with" and "in" believers in a way that he is not with and in unbelievers (John 14:17). How can this be? The answer lies in the peculiar manifestation of his presence. God's presence is manifested gloriously in heaven (Isaiah 6:1-7), but is shrouded elsewhere. His sanctifying paraclesis is manifest in believers but absent in unbelievers. And it would seem valid to suggest that this manifestation of the Spirit may be intensified in believers--not so that they have a mystical "sense of the divine," but so that they exhibit more intensely the effects of his sanctifying work.

(2) More specifically, the Scripture writers speak of God "being with" believers in terms of a heightened awareness of God's presence. A timely recollection of God's gracious and righteous presence may motivate a believer (Matt 28:20) or comfort him (Ps 139). Meditation on God's continual observation of our day-to-day affairs can motivate proper industry (Col 3:22). Reminders of God's providential presence in effecting his own decree can impel ministry (Acts 18:10). And so forth. Such realizations of the divine presence need not be described in terms of mystical or existential ecstasy (though the affections surely may be stirred by such knowledge), but in rather ordinary, cognitive terms. I know God is there, and this is eminently satisfying. Not surprisingly, we find prayers to this end contained in Scripture (e.g., Rom 15:33; 2 Thess 3:16).

(3) God's being "with" believers, particularly in the OT arrangement, seems to bespeak God's blessing in tacit approval of obedience. God is "with" believers granting them success. Multiplied statements such as "Do X and I will be with you" or "He did X and the Lord was with him" reflect this understanding. Such statements are more prominent in the OT economy because the obedience/blessing rubric is covenantal, and thus a matter of divine promise and obligation. This does not mean, however, that similar requests for God to "be with" someone today are out of order. God, we find, is "with" those who think and act in obedience to God (Phil 4:9) and draws near to those who draw near to him (Jas 4:8)--not in a literal or mystical sense, but by bestowing his gracious favor in response to obedience. Prayers to this effect, while more common in the OT (Exod 18:19; 1 Chron 22:11, 16; Amos 5:14), are surely appropriate today.

(4) Sometimes God's being "with" believers in the biblical record reflects God's exertion of supernatural influence so that they are able to lead the theocratic nation (1 Sam 18:12), perform miracles (Acts 10:38), or to act as conduits of divine revelation. Requests for God to "be with" us in this sense must be tempered by one's general understanding of revelatory and other miraculous gifts today.


To conclude, then, God's "being with" believers, when used properly, is a rich theological idea of considerable merit. May God give us the grace to purge our prayers of vacuous prayers for God to "be with" his people, and instead to pray such prayers with Scripture-informed understanding.

MAS

May the Lord Be “With” You, Part 1

Last Sunday at church my pastor insightfully fingered the all-to-common tendency for believers to mindlessly add color to prayers by asking God to “be with” someone. We all know it would be improper to lead out in small group prayer by saying, “God’s here’s my prayer list: Frank, Jennifer, Andrea, Jimmy. Amen.” So we spruce it up: “Lord, please be with Frank in the hospital tonight. And Lord, be especially near to Jennifer at the funeral tomorrow. Also, be with Andrea in her car as she travels to Florida tomorrow. And little Jimmy—please be with him too, wherever he is. Amen.” And somehow we imagine that by letting God know we are personally privy to each situation and adding a plea for God’s “withness,” our prayers have become acceptable. Oh, me.

Now this is not to say that prayers for God to “be with” or “be near” people are uniformly evil. After all, such prayers are common in Bible (see, e.g., 1 Kings 1:37; Rom 15:33; 2 Thess 3:16; etc.). Further, God’s promises to be “with” or “near” people are described in Scripture as highly motivational and encouraging (Ps 73:23, 28; 91:15; Isa 43:2; etc.).

So is it ever right to ask God to be “with” or “near” people today? Certainly it will not do to make such a request mindlessly. Sad to say, my pastor was dead on when he discerned that we often mean little or nothing by such requests. They’re just prayer filler—and that’s a major problem. So if we are to make this request it must be laced with proper understanding. And here lies the crux of the problem. What does it mean for God to “be with” people, and how should we expect God to answer such requests?

The answer is not short, so I’ll start today with what it doesn’t mean. More later on what it does.

First, it goes without saying that divine proximity is constant. God fills all of his universe with the whole of his being. We can’t expect him to answer our prayers by appearing in some location where he is currently absent. Or by increasing his presence to more completely fill a room or a human heart. Don’t laugh. I think some people actually think that.

Second, we should not expect God to make an immediate, personal manifestation of himself (whether sensory or extra-sensory) in answer to prayers for his nearness. I recently stumbled across a report of an experimental “God helmet” that stimulates a religious experience by applying magnets to the brain, creating the illusion of a “presence” in the room. Weird. Really Weird. And yet I’m not sure that this “God helmet” is all that far removed from the expectation that some have when they pray for God to be “near.” In fact, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that God’s nearness is a mystically “felt” presence that resembles the chemical effects of magnets, alcohol, hallucinogens, or yoga. And no, God is not in the little flashing lights on the back of your eyelids when you squeeze your eyes too tightly in prayer; nor is he in the corresponding lightheadedness you feel. That’s the merger of physiology and an active imagination.

But it must mean something for God to "be with" us. Next post: What we can we expect God to do in response for our requests for him to “be with” us?

MAS

Faith As Disposition

A chronic tension in the debate over the role of faith to regeneration in the theological ordo salutis is the issue of chronology. Despite the insistence from both sides of the debate that the issue is one of logical rather than temporal succession, many hearers just don't get it because they view regeneration and faith as parallel events: God gives life [event 1] and I say a prayer [event 2]. And if one of these events is causally prior to the other, that event cannot possibly escape being chronologically prior. One event cannot cause another event unless it precedes it temporally.


The debate can, I believe, be advanced by the realization that while regeneration is pure event, faith is not. Certainly faith issues in events (I call on God to save me, I get baptized, I attend church, etc.), but it is more fundamentally a disposition. The Christian is a believer who has faith as a fundamental attribute of his very nature, and as a result necessarily does acts of faith.


It is this realization more than any other (together with a reading of John 1:12-13, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, and the whole of 1 John) that tipped me into the camp that sees regeneration as logically causitive of faith. Act follows from disposition and disposition from nature, thus a new nature is necessary to faith. In regeneration God makes a new creature, or more to the point, he makes a believer.


In this scenario the temporal gap disappears. God doesn't create a new man (event) who calls out to him in faith a nano-second later (event). Nor, conversely, do a person say a prayer (event), to which God responds by giving life (event). Instead, an event produces a disposition: God creates a believer.



MAS

Your Boasting Is Evil...Or Is It?

Rick Warren has gotten some negative press time since he twittered last night, “I challenge any church in America to match the spiritual maturity, godliness & commitment of any 500 members of Saddleback.” He's apparently had some second thoughts about that comment, because he has since removed it. I'll give due credit to him for that. But it brings up a question: Is it ever OK to boast?

It is easy to say that pride is always wrong--after all, God hates pride (Prov 8:13), pride leads to destruction and disgrace (Prov 11:2; 16:18), and God resists the proud (Jas 4:6). But the biblical witness does not seem to treat the idea of pride with uniform condemnation. God boasts in his people (Ps 47:5); Paul regularly boasts in the churches and his converts (2 Cor 7:4, 14; 1 Thess 2:19); the churches boast in their leaders (2 Cor 1:14; 5:12); we are encouraged to take pride in our work (Gal 6:4-5); and boasting in one's family is also mentioned in a favorable light (Prov 17:6). So what gives?

First of all, it must be noted that there is no single Greek or Hebrew term for pride. There are some terms that are consistently used negatively and reflect in the English translations with more negative English terms like "arrogance," "haughtiness," or "conceit." Others can be used positively, and reflect in the English translations with more positive English terms like "glory," "rejoicing," "satisfaction," "exultation," "dignity," or as "taking pride" in something. The Greek kauxaomai word family (59 NT instances), particularly, is often used positively, with about a 2 to 1 ratio of positive to negative uses (it's hard to be specific, because Paul's sarcastic boasting in 2 Corinthians makes the count a bit tricky).

There also seem to be contextual factors that color NT usage. Boasting in something evil is, of course, wrong. So is taking personal glory for things rightly attributable to another (and esp. to God). But most critical to the issue at hand (Paul's boasting vs. Rick's boasting) is the matter of comparative or competitive boasting. This seems to be the watershed. One may be rightly proud of his work, his family, his church, or his pastor, but crosses a line when this pride results in comparison and elevation (and corresponding denigration). I am particularly drawn to Galatians 6:4-5 in this regard--a passage that I have commended to my two sons because it captures this balance well with respect to one's personal work ethic, a.k.a., "taking pride" in one's work:

NASB: But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load.

NIV: Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

NLT: Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won't need to compare yourself to anyone else. For we are each responsible for our own conduct.

So is it wrong to boast? Yes and no. The Bible is filled with examples of proper boasting, but also warns against improper boasting. And it is very easy to cross that line.

MAS

Crossway ESV Bible Atlas and Noah's Flood

OK, so I stopped blogging, but I needed to rant about something. Not a good way to go about blogging, but anyway...

I just unwrapped a copy of the new ESV Bible Atlas (Crossway, 2010) and after scanning the manditory dust jacket blurbs, introductions, and table of contents, I decided to give the first chapter a quick read. The chapter, entitled "Before Abraham," is an 11-page survey of historical and archaeological data covering the historical period from Creation to Abraham. Makes sense to start a Bible atlas here.

But amazingly, after a half page of introduction and a glossy inset about the location of the Garden of Eden, the Bible is summarily set aside until reference is made to the table of the nations in Genesis 10. Now this might make sense if there is nothing in Genesis 4-9 to inform cartography. But in fact the single most significant cartographic event in earth history occurs in those chapters: Noah's Flood. But there is no mention of Flood. Or of Noah (Gilgamesh gets a nod, but not Noah). In fact, assuming that the Scripture index is comprehensive, there is no reference to Genesis 4-9 in the entire volume.

I've been uneasy for some time about how the ESV and esp. the ESV Study Bible snub certain features of my theology (esp. dispensationalism, cessationism, and young earth creationism), but the sheer overtness of this one caught me by surprise.

How is it possible to fill eleven 9x12 pages on the history and archaeology of the pre-Abrahamic world and not mention Noah's Flood? Anyone?