The Vicarious Death Of Jesus (IV)

The Lamb of God That Propitiates

In a Facebook discussion I had with a Jesus-Did-Not-Die-Vicariously brother several years ago, I said:

In Galatians 3:13, Paul wrote, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’).” Then, in 1 Peter 2:24, we are told that Jesus “bore our sins in His own body on the tree [i.e., the cross].” Do not these passages, when coupled with Isaiah 53, convey the idea that Jesus suffered and died in our stead?

He replied: “Not when considered in the context of the rest of the Bible. They do however convey the idea that Jesus suffered and died on our behalf.” I probed further: “And what context in the rest of the Bible are you referring to?” He responded by saying: “The rest of the Bible that teaches Jesus died as a sacrifice NOT as a substitute (cf. John 1:29-37),” to which I replied:

Yes, by all means, Jesus was the perfect-Lamb-without-blemish sacrifice offered up for us on the cross of Calvary, as the Scriptures clearly teach. Consequently, while it is perfectly acceptable for one to preach and teach that Jesus paid the price for our sins because He was the perfectly sinless blood sacrifice for our sins, serving as the means to our redemption, it is, nevertheless, important to understand that this imagery does not fully exhaust God’s description of this sacrifice, and certainly does not exclude the substitutionary atonement.

As an example, I cited 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Paul says, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” The critics of the idea that Jesus died vicariously (i.e., in our place) have called “nonsense” the idea that this passage, along with others, is teaching that Jesus actually took upon Himself our sins, thus paying in full the price for our pardon by being “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Propitiation, Expiation, Or Both

As already noted, whether this death of Jesus was vicarious (viz., substitutionary) has now become a point of contention among brethren. This was precipitated, at least in part, by C. H. Dodd’s definition in 1935 of the Greek word ἱλαστήριος (hilastērion) as “expiation,” which up to that time had been translated in our English Bibles as “propitiation” (C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 1935, pp. 82-95). We see his influence reflected in the RSV’s 1952 translation of Romans 3:25a, which reads, “whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood” (emphasis mine). Although many can’t tell the difference between these two words, that difference is significant, as I hope to demonstrate.

It wasn’t very long before Dodd and Leon L. Morris locked horns over this in the 1950s-60s (cf. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd revised ed., 1965). As already stated, Dodd insisted hilastērion meant “expiation” rather than propitiation, as in the expiation (i.e., removal) of sins, while Morris was convinced the term meant “propitiation,” as in Jesus’ suffering and death resolved and pacified God’s judicial wrath against sinners. Morris was eventually backed up by the Anglian and noted Evangelical John Stott in his 1986 book The Cross of Christ (referenced in Matthew Black, Romans, New Century Bible, 1973), p. 68). Since then, it has become standard Evangelical theology to contend for a propitiatory atonement (cf. “Atonement—Propitiation, Expiation,” http://nextreformation.com/?p=8496). Most brethren, correctly rejecting the propitiatory view of the Calvinists, have nevertheless believed that Jesus’ death on the cross was, indeed, propitiatory.

But not all Evangelicals accepted the propitiatory view. One of these was the influential Anglian C. F. D. Moule. He argued that when the “halis-procedures,” as he called them, are referred to in the NT, God is never identified as the recipient of such actions, and for the word to mean the “propitiation” or “appeasement” of God, God would have to be the recipient. He went on to say that whenever the initiator or subject of the action is used in the NT, God is always the initiator, never the recipient. He mentioned Romans 3:25, as previously quoted, and 1 John 4:10, the latter of which reads, “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” as examples (emphasis mine), which are passages we’ll take a closer look as this study progresses. He concluded by saying:

If, then, God is the subject or originator, not the object or recipient, of hilas-procedures, it is manifestly inappropriate to translate them as propitiatory; one is driven to use a word such as ‘expiatory,’ which has as its object not propitiating a wrathful God but removing a barrier (Patrick Moule (author), Robert Morgan (editor), Christ Alive and at Large: The Unpublished Writings of C. F. D. Moule, Canterbury Studies in Spiritual Theology, 2011, p. 114).

Finally, “Nowhere in the NT,” he claimed, “is it said that the wrath of God was satisfied by the death of Jesus” (Ibid.).

As there are those among us who have taken up Dodd’s and Moule’s “expiation, not propitiation” chant (viz., “No matter how the word [hilastērion] is translated the object is still our sins and not God’s wrath” (quote from a recent Facebook discussion by brethren on the Substitutionary Death of Jesus debate), it behooves us to investigate just how well such assertions hold up.

The idea that hilastērion should be translated as “expiation” (RSV, NEB) completely misses the point Paul is making in Romans 3:25. He had already made it clear that God’s wrath against sinners is a fact that must be dealt with for both Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32) and Jews (Romans 2:1-3:20). Yes, clearly the expiation or remission of sins is on the table when it comes to God’s grand scheme of redemption, but before sins can be expiated or removed there must first be a way to placate God’s wrath, and in the Greek language this was the work of hilastērion or propitiation. As Romans 3:25-26 makes clear, this was a role Jesus played in the redemption of fallen man. But as indicated, it was certainly not the only role He played. Without Him being the hilastērion there was absolutely no way sinful man could be reconciled/redeemed. So even though it has become popular in some sections to reject the idea of a wrathful God in favor of one who is all-loving, the faithful student of God’s word cannot, with integrity intact, deny the wrathful side of God’s character.

Indeed, the best way to view God’s wrath is to think of it “as not essentially different from his holiness, but as holiness itself in its confrontation with actual sin” (Jack Cottrell, What The Bible Says About God The Redeemer 1987, p. 275). In other words, God’s righteous anger is the manifestation of a righteous Judge who cannot tolerate sin of any sort. But if this is true (and it is), then how was it that Paul, who describes himself as the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), could say, with any assurance, “Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8)? The answer is, he could do so because of the gospel he believed and taught to others—the very basis of which he described in Romans 3:24b-26 as:

Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, (26) to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In other words, and as frank as I know how to be, without propitiation (hilastērion) in connection with the blood of Christ, God cannot be just when justifying (forgiving) sinners. Please catch my drift here, as it is extremely important. God, because HE IS WHO HE IS (Exodus. 3:14), could not save man “just any old way!” In order to be just when justifying sinners, God, the righteous Judge, whose righteous law had to be vindicated, was Himself compelled to provide the propitiation that would be able to placate His righteous wrath. Thus, the divine Logos, who was with God and was God had to take upon Himself flesh, live a perfect life of obedience to God the Father, suffering and dying a cursed death on a cruel tree outside of the gates of Jerusalem some two thousand years ago. This is what Paul was talking about when he said, in Galatians 3:13, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE’).”

So, contrary to Dodd and Moule, God was both the initiator and recipient of hilastērion, as well as the hilastērion Himself.

In 1 John 4:10, a different, but equivalent, word is used (hilasmos): “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Therefore, if we really what to get blown away by the magnificence of God’s love toward us, then we need to get our minds wrapped around the fact that He loved us so much that He was willing to do for us, from start to finish, what we, as sinners, were unable to do for ourselves. Indeed, when it comes to our reconciliation to God and the forgiveness of our sins, God did it all, praise be to Him!

Therefore, and contrary to Dodd and Moule, if God was both the initiator and recipient of hilastērion, as well as Himself the hilastērion or halismon, then we have every reason to reject their bold assertion that the wrath of God was not one of the things that needed to be factored into God’s justification of sinners. Truth is, this is the very thing Paul is writing about in Romans 3:21-26, which says:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (22) even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, (26) to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Without the propitiation (appeasement or satisfying) of the righteous Judge’s judicial wrath, there can be no remission of sins—a feat that was simply not possible without the shedding of blood (or death) of Jesus of Nazareth, the Father’s only begotten Son (cf. Hebrews 9:22-28). As such, He “was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9). That is, He was made a little lower than the angels in order to “suffer” (“taste”) death “for.” “on behalf of,” or “in place of” (huper, ‪#‎G5228‬ ) every man. It is in this sense that Jesus of Nazareth, who was perfectly sinless in all His doings, was made “sin for us.” Again, the word “for” here is huper and could just as well have been translated as “on behalf of” or “in place of.” Nevertheless, these last two translations, particularly the latter, are vigorously opposed by those who do not believe Jesus died in our stead or place.

It should be clear from these passages along with the correct interpretation of Hebrews 2:9, that the Father “treated as sin” His Son, “who knew no sin.” All sorts of “red herrings” have been thrown in our path by the Jesus-didn’t-die-vicariously brethren concerning this passage. One of these has to do with how Jesus, who was sinless, could “become” a sinner. This, of course, has nothing to do with the correct exegesis of this passage. Instead, such serves only to call into question a passage that stands in the way of those who want to deny that Jesus suffered any sort of judicial wrath from His Father when willingly sacrificing Himself on the cross for us; namely, the idea that says, “It is not God that is propitiated but our sins.” However, the one who so argues propitiation does not even believe the Bible says anything about such a concept. Instead, he advocates expiation, which although related, is an entirely different concept.

(Please make a note of the fact that I do not deny the concept of expiation. Without the expiation or removal of sin, we cannot be saved. The Bible teaches that BOTH propitiation AND expiation are absolutely necessary for us to be saved by grace through faith. Thus, when speaking of propitiation and expiation, it is not “either-or,” as some think, but “both-and,” as the Bible teaches. This is because there’s simply no way God can be just in justifying sinners (i.e., by forgiving or expiating sin) unless, and until, His judicial wrath has been appeased. Accordingly, propitiation is but one aspect of fallen man’s problem. Another facet is the actual expiation (or forgiveness) of our sins. Although these two aspects of saving grace may be spoken of separately, they are connected, when it comes to God’s grand scheme of redemption, via the precious blood of Jesus Christ.)

We’ll pick up here in the next post in this series.

The Vicarious Death Of Jesus (III)

The Price Of Redemption

By the time we get to the pages of the New Testament, we are absolutely overjoyed to discover that the great scheme of redemption that was fully hidden in the mind of God before the foundation of the world has now been revealed to us, actualized in the fullness of time in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Messiah, that is, the Christ (consider what is said in Ephesians 3:5 coupled with the many other passages that tell us who Jesus was and what He came to accomplish). Oh, what magnificent grace and mercy! Oh, what wonderful, wonderful love!

The Calvinists are always arguing that if man is amenable to the gospel and is actually called upon to do anything in order to be saved, then salvation is by works instead of faith alone. However, as we’ve already learned, the Bible does not teach salvation by faith alone, at least not in the sense the Calvinists mean. It does teach that if man is going to be saved, it will have to be “by grace…through faith” (Ephesians 2:8); therefore, it is to this much-misunderstood concept that we now turn our attention.

Saved By Grace Through Faith

Man does not have to sin, but he does. In fact, all have, or will, sin (cf. Romans 3:23). The only way a man can be justified under a system of justification by law-keeping is by perfect law-keeping, which no mere man has ever done. Thus, if sinful man is going to be justified (saved), it will have to be because of God’s grace. This grace has been extended to us through God’s sending of His only begotten Son into this world to do what we had failed to do—namely, to perfectly keep, and thus fulfill, the law. Having done so, such a system (personified in the law of Moses) could be set aside so that a new covenant, with better promises, could be instituted for man’s justification/salvation (cf. Hebrews 8:6; 12:24).

So, although it is theoretically possible for one to keep the law perfectly and thus go to Heaven, the rules under such a system require that all the law be kept all one’s life (remember that the grace available under the law was made so only by the blood that would one day be shed on the cross of Calvary). Because all mankind miserably failed in this, except Jesus of Nazareth, all mankind was in need of redemption. God was not obligated to redeem His prodigal creation, but He wanted to anyway. Thus, He designed a plan (viz., the grand and glorious Scheme of Redemption) whereby His fallen creatures could be redeemed.

Contrary to popular belief, God could not have saved man just any ol’ way (cf. Romans 3:21-26). Redemption, if such was going to be implemented, would have to satisfy God’s justice, and God’s justice requires that any violation of law be punished. Jesus Christ, then, became the propitiation (or satisfaction) of such justice, which required that the only man who ever lived perfectly under law (thus qualifying as the spotless sacrifice, or propitiation, for the sins of all mankind) would pay the penalty for everyone else (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15). Thus, the only man who truly deserved glorification in Heaven, and this because He kept the law perfectly, suffered the penalty and, in so doing, became the propitiation for the sins of us all.

We must remember, then, that grace—and this is because it’s grace—isn’t fair. I know this sounds strange to those who’ve never thought about it this way, but if it’s fair you want, you must relate to God through a system of justification by perfect law-keeping. Keep the law and you do not fall into condemnation; break the law and you become guilty of all, deserving the penalty that is due every law-breaker. This is fair. But under such a system, all mankind, except for Jesus, sinned and, as a result, deserves the penalty. But because He loved us, God sent His only begotten Son into this world to bring about our salvation through the sacrifice of Himself coupled with our willingness to accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Thus, if God is for us, and He’s demonstrated He is by the sending of His Son on our behalf, who is it then that will be able to stand against us (Romans 8:31)? Paul continues:

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. (Romans 8:32-34).

It is clear, then, that God, in connection with His Son, has given us “all things.” This means there is nothing lacking in connection with our redemption and continued salvation—not one single, solitary thing! Because God was able to justify us in connection with the sacrifice of His only begotten Son on the cross, who vicariously paid the price of redemption for our sins, no one can now bring a charge against His elect and make it stick. Thus, nothing is “able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:39).

Next, we’ll delve a bit more deeply into what the Scriptures say about propitiation.

The Vicarious Death Of Jesus (II)

Do-Nothing Religion

AT ISSUE IS WHAT THE BIBLE, NOT CALVINISM, TEACHES

The main difference between Calvinism, a man-made doctrine, and the Bible, a divinely inspired revelation, is the idea that Calvinists believe that all the works of God in connection with our salvation are unconditional. Such thinking is required by their concept of God’s sovereignty—a concept that is simply not taught in the Bible. But when this erroneous concept is then joined with the equally wrong idea that man, since the fall of Adam, is born totally depraved and is, therefore, not only unwilling to do God’s will in such a state, but is actually unable to do so, then the false idea that God can’t predestine a person to be saved based on His foreknowledge of whether or not that person will meet certain divinely imposed conditions is the inevitable result. This, in turn, provides all the main ingredients that form the basis of genuine five-point Calvinism (T-U-L-I-P).

In critiquing such an unscriptural idea, I have, at times, called it a “do-nothing religion” (in that God, in such a system, is the only actor), only to be met with screams and howls from Calvinists claiming this is a totally false caricature of their religion. However, if man does not have free will, and there are no genuine five-point Calvinists who have ever thought he truly does, and if, as has been amply pointed out, Calvinists believe that everything that has to do with man’s salvation must be done by God, then Calvinism, from man’s standpoint, may be properly classified as a do-nothing religion. Now, in saying this I am not describing those who call themselves three- or four-point Calvinists, which are not really Calvinists at all, but Arminians, even though they’d never admit it. This is because the Augustinians/Calvinists have already decided that Arminianism is heresy.

So, there must be no doubt that five-point Calvinism, from man’s standpoint, is a do-nothing religion, as God does it all, even to the point of selecting (viz., choosing/electing/predestining) certain ones to obey His Son by operating upon them with His so-called “irresistible grace.” This irresistible grace causes them to be born again, or renewed spiritually, so that they, in turn, are able to then do what it is that God requires of them. Consequently, there are absolutely no conditions to being saved, for if there were, Calvinists inform us, then man would be earning his salvation by works, not grace. Although this accurately depicts Calvinism, it does not describe, in any shape, form, or fashion, New Testament Christianity.

What The Bible Actually Says

The Bible teaches that God decided to create us with free moral agency. Because He has foreknowledge, God knew His free will creatures were going to fall into sin and be in need of a Savior. Making the decision to redeem them, which was certainly not something He was obligated to do (it’s grace we’re talking about here), God the Father determined to send the Logos (or the divine Word) into this world as a man (viz., Jesus of Nazareth) to live and die so that mankind, in spite of its sinfulness, could be saved by faith in the Father’s only begotten Son.

Consequently, it was foreordained by God, the Father, before the very foundation of the world (i.e., before He ever created man) that Jesus would shed His blood at a particular time in the space-time continuum (cf. 1 Peter 1:19-20). Referring to this, the apostle Paul called it, “when the fullness of the time had come” (Galatians 4:4).

The fact that God could foreknow, before He ever created them, that all His free will creatures would fall into sin and be in need of a Savior and that, in spite of this, He chose to go ahead and create them anyway, does not impugn the character of God, as some Christians seem to think. But why do they think so? I think it is because they have inculcated Calvinistic think-sos and arguments. Now, I’m not saying they’re Calvinists, mind you; only that they have been willing to let the Calvinists define the terms and set the parameters of the debate.

For example, the Calvinistic idea that there is some sort of friction between God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will is not taught in the Scriptures. But because some brethren have believed the Calvinists were right about this, they have felt the necessity to defend man’s free will by sacrificing God’s foreknowledge. Such was a major error for the Calvinists and it is an even bigger one for New Testament Christians.

Even so, because of God’s foreknowledge of the fact that man would sin and that this would, in turn, require Him to send His Son to pay the price for those sins, and that this would be accomplished by man kissing (viz., worshiping) His Son (cf. Psalm 2:12 for this concept of kissing the Son and how the idea is tied to worshipful obedience), and that this would be achieved, on man’s part, by exercising faith in Jesus as Lord and, ultimately, as Savior (stay with me here), He was able, in eternity, to do something—namely, to predestine not just the plan whereby He would redeem fallen man, but exactly who those individuals were who, when given the opportunity, would be willing, of their own free wills, to obey (or “kiss”) His Son, and this by rendering obedience by faith to the gospel plan. (I know this is a very long sentence, but it is imperative to understanding this issue. So, if you didn’t quite understand it the first or second time around, then please make the effort to do so before proceeding any further.)

Now, if God had not been willing to do this, and this even before the foundation of the world, then mankind was going to be lost. Therefore, if man is saved at all, he is saved by grace. But as we shall see, this salvation was not to be by grace alone. Man would have to do something in order to be saved. Salvation is, and this is extremely important, by grace through faith—a faith that would gladly accept and render obedience to God’s conditions of grace. But for now, let’s continue with the logical inferences and ramifications of the working in tandem of God’s “determined counsel and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23).

Thus, those individuals who God “chose…in Him [Jesus Christ] before the foundation of the world” were “predestined” by Him “to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ,…according to the good pleasure of His will” (Ephesians 1:4-5). That this was, even before creation, a done deal in the mind of God is once again confirmed and made quite clear by Romans 8:29-30, which says:

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Furthermore, that the end result of this whole process is that these foreknown individuals (i.e., “the elect”) would one day be glorified in Heaven (viz., the “new heavens and a new earth” of 2 Peter 3:13) cannot, according to this passage, be scripturally denied, although I am sorry to say that I have known Christians who have done so, arguing that the glorification mentioned here is only that which takes place on earth when an individual obeys the gospel. Now, I do not deny that our calling and justification is the <1>beginning of this process, but glorification cannot be fully realized unless, and until, we obtain our glorified bodies. It is only then that we will fully and completely be conformed to the image of God’s Son—a Son who is now glorified in heaven and, as such, is “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18), and all this that He might be able to bring “many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2:10).

That New Testament Christians could ever think of denying an idea that is so clearly taught in God’s word demonstrates, once again, just how much Calvinistic thinking has influenced our thinking. Again, I am not arguing that such brethren are Calvinists, only that they are willing to deny (i.e., to explain away, if you will) the clear teaching of the Bible concerning the actual contents of God’s foreknowledge, thinking that if God actually knew before the foundation of the world who it was that was going to be saved in Heaven, then the future would somehow be fixed in a way that would nullify man’s free will.

However, the future is not “fixed” because God’s foreknowledge has caused it to be that way; instead, it is “fixed” only because this is the way free will creatures will respond to various circumstances and situations, and God, because HE IS WHO HE IS, simply foreknows what these contingent, free will choices will be. There is nothing inherently causative about such foreknowledge, and those who think there is have fallen prey to philosophy and other man-made think-sos.

But still suffering from that ol’ Calvinistic bugaboo, someone says that if what I have written above is true, then this means that Jesus must have died just for the sins of the elect (that is to say, a limited few) and not for the sins of the whole world. But this simply isn’t true. Although the elect were certainly foreknown by God even before He created the world, Jesus was not predestined to die only for the elect, as the Calvinists teach. No, no, no, a thousand times, no! Jesus, the Scriptures unequivocally teach, died for all mankind, not just a select few, and this, too, was a fact known by God before the foundation of the world (cf. 1 Peter 1:20).

This means that before He actually created this particular world, God knew that only a few, relatively speaking, would be saved, and that the rest would be lost, spending an eternity in a Devil’s hell. Consequently, it is argued by some that if this is, in fact, the case (and it has been demonstrated that this is exactly what the Bible teaches), then how could a loving, merciful God think that the few who would be saved were worth the many who would be lost? This is an important point. Therefore, it behooves us to understand what we can about this, at times, most perplexing subject.

Trying To Think It Through By Faith

As we try to think about such things, even though limited by puny, finite minds, we can theorize that there must have been a multitude of different worlds that God, with His infinite knowledge (which included foreknowledge), could have created, all with a multitude of different outcomes. Why He chose this particular world, along with its particular results, is something completely known at this time, and perhaps forever, only by God. Even so, and this is now a foregone conclusion, He did decide to create this particular world with its particular outcome. Thus, before creating this world and knowing that many souls would be lost for an eternity as the result of His doing so, God did, in fact, choose to create this world: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). And it is just here in this very first verse of the Bible that saving faith begins, for faith, we are told in Romans 10:17 (and this is the “saving faith” we’re talking about), “comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” In Hebrews 11:3, after being informed in verse one that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” we are told: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” From this beginning verse—verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book—those of us who have been called by the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14) have learned to trust in and rely upon our Creator, who is, no doubt, our Ruler, as well as our glorious Redeemer, and praise Him for it. And it is just here, at the very beginning of saving faith, that we begin to get some idea why God determined that the remnant of His creation that would be saved and spend an eternity with Him in heaven was worth His creating this particular world. This will become more evident as we continue this study in the next post.

The Vicarious Death Of Jesus

Vicarious Atonement

In their efforts to refute Calvinism, some are willing to deny that Jesus died vicariously, or in our stead, as the word indicates. In running away from Calvinism, it is not necessary to reject the substitutional death that the Bible, in Isaiah 53 (and other places), so clearly says Jesus suffered on our behalf. But this is what some Christians are doing.

The quotes that immediately follow are taken from separate articles written by two different Christians. I’m not naming the source for either, for it is not the who but the what that I wish to concentrate on. The first quote says:

In the sense of the substitution theory [this is what he calls the vicarious death of Jesus—AT], if Jesus, when He died on the cross, removed God’s wrath against sin, satisfied divine justice, paid all our debt in our place, took our punishment for sin upon himself, became guilty with our guilt, was cursed in our stead, then Jesus has already done it all in our place. How can we be charged with anything if Jesus has already done it all? If Jesus has already taken my punishment upon himself, then I do not have to worry because my punishment was removed 2000 years ago! I cannot be held accountable for what I have done because my substitute has already taken that on himself and removed any responsibility from me!

The second quote reads exactly like the first, with the exception of the final sentence, which says, “The only conclusion that can be reached from the substitution position is universal salvation….or Calvinist limited atonement!” (Italics are in the original—AT.) This second brother went on to say the following in the very next paragraph:

Some will insist that they do not believe in either universal salvation or limited atonement but believe in substitution anyway. But, they don’t realize what they are saying. The Bible teaches that we must do something to have our sins removed, Mark 16:15, 16, Acts 2:38. We are righteous even as He is righteous if we do righteousness, 1 John 3:7, and are acceptable with God if we work righteousness, Acts 10:34, 35. We can escape the punishment of hell but must obey God to do so, Matthew 25:32-46. We must obey God in order to enter Heaven, Matthew 7:21-27. The very fact that we must do all these things in order to have our sins removed, be righteous and escape punishment for sin demonstrates that the substitution theory is human error and not truth. Some will say they believe in the necessity of human obedience and substitution as well. Again, they don’t know what they are saying. Human obedience and the substitution theory are contradictions. This is why Calvinism virtually removes any such human effort from the process. Limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the impossibility of apostasy of Calvinism are the direct results of the substitution theory. Baptist doctrine demonstrates the same things; God provides the faith and grace, once saved you can’t be lost and the number is limited to those to whom God gives the grace. And why not, if Jesus has already done everything in our place? What is there for us to do?

I wanted to include these quotes to let the reader know that I’m not constructing straw men here. It isn’t difficult to see that these two brothers reject the vicarious death of Jesus. That is, although they know He died in order to pay the price for our redemption, they nevertheless make it absolutely clear that they reject, as gross error, the idea that Jesus died in our stead. And they do so, once again, to refute that ol’ Calvinism bugaboo. Calvinism certainly needs to be rejected; but in doing so, one must not reject what the Bible teaches on this or any other subject.

Rejecting The Either-Or Argument

I reject the premise that if one believes in the vicarious death of Jesus, one must either accept universalism or Calvinism, for such an “either-or” assumption is simply not a valid scriptural point. The Bible teaches neither of these, and I reject them both. Furthermore, I will trust what the Bible actually says rather than what these brethren are trying to tell me it says. As I’ve already indicated, I will argue, from Isaiah 53 and other passages, that Jesus did, in fact, die in our stead. And although both these aforementioned brothers castigate those who hold “the substitution theory” for coming under the influence of human reasoning and denominational think-sos, I believe it is their own thinking that reflects such enslavement. For example, in Galatians 3:13, Paul wrote, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’).” Then, in 1 Peter 2:24, we are told that Jesus “bore our sins in His own body on the tree [i.e., the cross].” Do not these passages, when coupled with Isaiah 53, convey the idea that Jesus suffered and died in our stead? Why, then, must I, in order to be thought sound in the faith, believe that Jesus didn’t die in my place?

Truth is, I don’t, and the convoluted logic and attempted exegeses of these two brothers changes nothing. Man seems to always get into trouble with the human analogies he tries to appropriate to God. God is not a man. Therefore, the limitations of our human analogies cannot apply across the board to Him. When we try to make them do so, we are engaged in what the Bible calls idolatry.

I am not a universalist; nor am I a Calvinist. I am, instead, a Christian who believes what God has said in His word about who and what He is, whether I can fully understand it or not. This is true even when I can’t seem to find a human analogy that completely applies to Him. One must be very careful about such things, for God and His thoughts are infinite and, therefore, so far above us and how we think (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9) that it is just impossible for us to know everything about Him. Yes, there is plenty to know about God, but there is still plenty more that we simply do not, and cannot, know (cf. Romans 11:33 and compare it with Job 26:14).

Partly Right, But Still Very Wrong

What do I mean by the above subtitle? Simply this: Yes, Jesus was the perfect-Lamb-without-blemish sacrifice offered up for us on the cross of Calvary, as the Scriptures clearly teach. Consequently, while it is perfectly acceptable for one to preach and teach that Jesus paid the price for our sins because He was the perfectly sinless blood sacrifice for our sins, serving as the means to our redemption, it is, nevertheless, important to understand that this imagery does not fully exhaust God’s description of this sacrifice.

For instance, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul said, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Now, the critics of the idea that Jesus died vicariously or in our place have called “nonsense” the idea that this passage, along with others, is teaching that Jesus actually took upon Himself our sins, paying in full the price for our pardon by being “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Thus, I find it disturbing that some Christians have taken to calling “nonsense” anything taught in God’s word that they happen to disagree with, whether it is this issue or some other, like the controversy over the days of Creation, or the brouhaha that manifested itself a decade or so ago over the deity-humanity of Jesus.

For example, the idea that God actually created the Universe in something approaching 144 hours is considered by some among us to be silly or ridiculous, as it contradicts the “Science” of our day. Likewise, the idea that Jesus could have been 100% God and 100% man while here on this earth was clearly thought by some among us to be absolute “nonsense.” But these ideas aren’t silly or nonsensical at all. In fact, they represent accurately the six-day creation taught in the Scriptures and the fully God-fully man Jesus described in the New Testament. Consequently, I don’t like it one bit when I hear Christians calling nonsense, silly, or ridiculous things I can clearly read about in the Bible.

But if there were anything inherent in the vicarious death concept I believe to be taught in the Bible that demanded universalism or Calvinism, as some are wrongly claiming, then I would, no doubt, have some interest in the semantical gymnastics they engage in to “prove” that it can’t be true. But when one of these argues that a particular interpretation of a pertinent passage that appears to teach that Jesus died vicariously can’t be interpreted that way because it has already been demonstrated that the doctrine isn’t true, when he has, in fact, done no such thing, just makes me shake my head in disbelief that a brother in Christ would stoop to making such a statement—a statement that, ironically, is to be taken, ipse dixit, as an argument for precisely why the doctrine isn’t true.

Asking A Difficult Question

Those who take the position that Jesus did not die vicariously are known to ask this supposed hard question: “To whom do you think the ransom price for our sins was paid?” If you say to God, which they wrongly think is the incorrect answer, they make reference to Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, in the 11th century, was the first one to introduce the idea that the ransom or satisfaction was paid by Christ not to Satan, but to God. Then, we are quickly informed, the Reformers compounded Anselm’s error by adding to it the idea that Jesus actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God and, as their substitute, suffered the punishment that was due them, including the sufferings of Hell. Upon Him, it is claimed these Reformers taught, fell all the punishment of all the sins of all the men for whom He died. Consequently, it was further argued that these Reformers believed that, because of Jesus’ sacrifice, penal justice could have no further claim. As a result, the so-called Substitution Theory was cross connected with the five points of Calvin, standing on the two legs of the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of His righteousness to us.

To this I simply say, “So what!” What Anselm thought, or what the Reformers believed, is not really all that important to me, and I don’t mean anything overtly disrespectful when I say this. What I believe about Jesus’ vicarious death is based on what I can read in the Bible, not the philosophies and think-sos of men, be they Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or even Thomas and Alexander Campbell. But what I can read in the Bible is very important to me, and I can read in the Bible much about Jesus’ vicarious death.

“But That’s Not Even In The Bible,” They Argue

Someone retorts: “But vicarious isn’t even in the Bible. Why then are you trying to defend it?” But the fact that the actual word isn’t used in the Scriptures doesn’t mean the concept or idea is not taught there. For instance, where is the term “triune nature” found in the Bible? It isn’t, but this does not mean that the idea isn’t taught within its pages, and most Bible students acknowledge this. But to charge me, or anyone else, with bowing down to the dictates of the First Council of Nicaea because I believe in the triune nature of God is simply uncalled for. Why, then, should brethren who accuse me of believing and teaching something that is false because the word I’m using to identify it isn’t found in the Bible expect my opinion of them to remain unquestioned when they resort to such tactics?

If I didn’t have any other teaching but Isaiah 53, I would still believe Jesus was the divinely ordained sin-bearer. I would still believe that the iniquity of us all was, in fact, laid upon Him by the Father. I would still believe that He was wounded for our transgressions because God loved us that much. And finally, I would still believe that Jesus bore the sins of us all because God ordained it. However, when one adds to this the many passages that teach this very same idea, then I think I have every reason to believe in the vicarious death of Jesus, namely, that He died in my stead, paying the price that was owed for my sins, and not mine only, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

This brings us full circle to this idea of Jesus being the “propitiation for our sins,” and how it is in this truth that we are so confident of our salvation—not just now, but in the future, as well. Consequently, we’ll have more to say about this in the next post in this series.

Ransomed, Purchased, Reconciled, And Redeemed

Jesus Paid It All

Both Jew and Gentile “have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23, KJV). Both are rconciled in one body through the cross (cf. Eph. 2:16a). This is the reconciliation that Paul wrote about in 2 Corinthians 5:19, “that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” The word of reconciliation is the gospel, which, when obeyed, permits the one rendering obedience to it to be reconciled to God first, and then, as Paul pointed out in the previous verses, to other men, and this regardless of their race, sex, or social status (cf. Gal. 3:28). This reconciliation is in the “one body” of Ephesians 1:22-23 and Colossians 1:18, which could not have existed without the work Jesus did for us on the cross, “thereby putting to death the enmity” (Eph 2:16b). How? “By His grace through the redemption that is in Christ, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:24-26). Through the cross of Christ sin has been properly dealt with, thus demonstrating that God, even in forgiving our sins, remains, Himself, just. Through the cross of Christ, the penalty for our sins was paid by Jesus on our behalf (cf. Gal. 3:13; 1 Tim 2:6). It is in this way, and this way only, that God remains just while acting as the justifier of all us sinners who exercise faith in His Son. Miss this and you’ll not understand the atonement as God intended for it to be understood.

Ode To The Unknown God (Conclusion)

Chickens Roosting

Today, our theological chickens are coming home to roost. As such, we are in the process of creating idols for our own destruction (cf. Hosea 8:4). If we don’t repent, we will be destroyed for our ignorance of God’s Word (cf. Hosea 4:6).

As the Lord’s own unique and special people, poised, as we are, in the second decade of the 21st century, we will either reject, resist, and repent of these destructive heresies, or we will be “cut off.” As free moral agents, the choice is ours. None of us is immune.

Therefore, self-examination is not out of order for anyone, even the most devout Christian. Remember, whatever is on the throne, whatever controls one’s life, is his idol. It may be “mammon” (Matthew 6:24); it may be personal pleasure (cf. Philippians 3:19); it may be one’s work or family; it may be drugs; it may be “omnipotent,” “infallible” science; or it may be just SELF (cf. Daniel 5:23). Whatever it is, it must be abandoned.

Finally, when we do our theology (i.e., out thinking about God), we must be care not to be creating the sham gods of orthotalksy.

Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. So the people answered and said: “Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods” (Joshua 24:14-16).

Ode To The Unknown God (IX)

The God Who Must Be Either Here Or There

The God Who Must Be Either Here Or There

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me (Psalm 139:7-10).

Looking at the title of this post, you might be thinking, “Who among us could believe such a thing?” Well, if my experiences are indicative of brotherhood norms, then there are more than a few New Testament Christians who think this way. But before proceeding further, I want to make it clear that I do not think my fellow Christians who think this way are intentionally trying to create a sham god. Absolutely not! Nevertheless, this is what they do when they argue that the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every obedient believer could only be accomplished by either a fragmented or multi-located Holy Spirit. By this they mean that if the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every Christian is actual, rather than “only in and through the Word,” as they are wont to say, then this could only be accomplished by either breaking (or dividing into pieces) the Holy Spirit, or by means of a multi-located Holy Spirit (i.e., a Holy Spirit that could be in more than one place at the same time, an idea they think is absurd). One who takes this position accused me of believing that “the Holy Spirit is scattered, one-to-a-believer, into thousands, perhaps millions, of fully functional, self-contained, independent units, each one the perfect clone of all the others.” Of course, this caricature does not represent what I believe, as such would be polytheism, pure and simple. But it does represent the kind of maneuvering that goes on in the minds of those who think God is somehow limited by space.

As I’ve pointed out time and again in this study, the one true God is infinite in His characteristics and attributes. This means He is not restricted by any external limitations, which does not include, of course, those internal limitations He may place on Himself or which are due to His nature. Therefore, this infinitude is defined by God’s self-existence, eternalness and omni-characterictics, which are omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. If we, in our theological surmisings, try to take any of these away from Him, then we honor a god who could no longer be the God of the Bible. Instead, he (and I’ve purposely dropped the capitalization here) becomes just another of the sham gods of orthotalksy.

Why then do otherwise faithful, intelligent Christians engage in such shenanigans? I don’t know all the reasons, but in some cases, at least, they think themselves to be defending the faith once and for all delivered1 against whatever false “ism” they happen to be zeroing in on at the moment. This means they never see themselves as anything else but faithful to the Lord and His Word. In reference to the Holy Spirit, this “ism” is most often Pentecostalism. As one who has taught and helped to convert many Pentecostals, I certainly understand the many errors associated with it. But when one thinks he is defending the faith by denigrating the characteristics and attributes of God, then it seems to me that these folks have involved themselves in an equally terrible delusion. Yes, Pentecostals are wrong about the Holy Spirit, seemingly unable to decide whether He’s a “He” or an “it.” They fail to distinguish between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They readily misappropriate passages to teach that all Christians are to be directly guided by the Holy Spirit. They believe the miraculous manifestations (“gifts”) of the Spirit are continuing today, even after that which is perfect has come—that is, the completed Word of God.2 There are, in fact, a whole host of errors associated with Pentecostalism. But to diminish God’s infinitude in the name of fighting Pentecostalism is a gross error that causes one, however unintentionally, to imbibe idolatry.

Theologians have argued that “God, in the totality of his essence, without diffusion or expansion, multiplication or division, penetrates and fills the universe in all its parts.”3 Although I do not feel the need to defend anyone’s theological construct but my own (and I am aware that my thinking could itself be in error), I do think this quote accurately represents the nature of omnipresence as set forth in the Bible.4 However, I wish to make it understood that I totally reject the idea of Pantheism, a concept that says everything is God and God is everything (i.e., that the material universe somehow makes up the very fabric of God). I make this disclaimer because several over the years have accused me of being a pantheist. More than likely, these charges were made by those who have never even talked to or, what’s more, helped convert a pantheist. Unfortunately, pantheism is a terribly wrong concept that presently enslaves more than a billion people, and I feel blessed to have taught and helped to convert more than a few pantheists. No, the uncreated, self-existent, eternal Creator is not some pantheistic everything. He does not consist of that which He has created. Instead, He stands above and beyond that which He’s created. Consequently, the transcendent God is not limited by the space-time continuum and is not, therefore, a spatial being (viz., He transcends all spatial limitations).

All Created Beings Are Spatial Creatures

Space, like time, is a product of creation. Therefore, all created beings are spatial creatures. This means that both the material and spiritual dimensions are spatial, though not necessarily in the same way. Although spiritual “space” is obviously not like material space, each of these dimensions must, by nature of their creation, have spatial limitations. Consequently, space of some sort is characteristic of all created beings.

The material universe of which we humans are a part is three-dimensional space. Our bodies themselves are spatial and, therefore, limited by the three-dimensional boundaries of space. Included in these limitation are the following: a material body can exist in only one space at a time; to get from one space to another, a material body must pass through the intervening space. This means that given the limitations of three dimensional space, it is impossible, when we factor in the fourth dimension of time, for a material body to occupy two different spaces at the same time.

In contrast to this, and evidently at the same time, fully spiritual creatures, such as angels and demons, do not normally occupy our space, as we do.5 Therefore, it can be safely concluded that these spiritual creatures are not restricted by the limitations of three-dimensional space, as we are. Nevertheless, as created beings, they have their own spatial dimension, with whatever limits that exist there. As I don’t occupy that dimension, I can’t tell you what it is like, but that this dimension exists is evident from Scripture. Further, the Bible teaches that when these spiritual creatures interact with material space, they are not totally outside its limits. For example, a spiritual creature, although he can evidently act multi-dimensional, can still only be in one space at a time. This is illustrated by the angelic appearance recorded in Daniel 10. The prophet Daniel had been “mourning” (which clearly included praying) for “three full weeks” (verse 2). When the angel appeared, he said:

Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.6

He went on to say, “Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come” (verse 14).

So, when interacting with our material dimension, this angel could not be in two places at the same time. He had been sent to answer Daniel and make known to him what would happen to his people in the future, but the “prince of Persia” (evidently another spiritual entity) withstood him for “twenty-one days.” The struggle was so intense that Michael (another spiritual creature) had to come and help him. Then, after administering to Daniel, he still needed to return and “fight” with the prince of Persia, knowing that the “prince of Greece” would eventually be involved (verse 20).

It is clear from Scripture, then, that a spiritual creature cannot occupy more than one space at a time. This means that spiritual beings (angels and demons) are not omnipresent. Satan himself cannot be everywhere at once and therefore uses other spiritual entities to represent his interests around the world.

What all this means, as I’ve said before, is that created beings, whether they be spiritual or material, are spatial beings. But in complete contrast to His creation, God, the uncreated Creator, is not a spatial being. He is unlimited by space and is, in fact, transcendent by means of His infinitude. The traditional word for this is immensity. However, because this word has come to mean “very large in size,” one must be very careful to exclude this connotation when speaking of God.

God is not immensely large, so as to fill all of space, even to infinity. Such thinking would be totally false and is manifested in Pantheism. The word itself literally means unmeasurable, not because God is too large to measure, but because, as a non-spatial being, He is not the kind of Being that can be measured. The term simply means that God is not limited by space. As such, all the limitations of space—extension, location and distance—simply do not apply to Him.

Therefore, God is universally present to all of space at all times. This does not mean, however, that He is dispersed throughout the infinite reaches of space, so that every part of space has at least a little part of God. God is not present in all of space, which is pantheism; instead, He is present to all of space. This means that the unlimited God in His whole Being is present at every point of our space. Perhaps a better way of saying this is to say that all space is immediately present before God. Personally, I don’t care how you look at this as long as you understand that the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible is not limited by space, as are His creatures.

Now, before going further, it is important to point out that I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me on the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the body of every obedient believer is engaged in idolatry. Certainly not! I have fellowship with those who think the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian only in and through the word. In fact, I believe it fair to say that the majority of brethren I have associated with over the years believe this way. They could be right, although I do not think so. Nevertheless, neither the integrity of God nor His Word (viz., the Holy Scriptures) suffers from such a conclusion, and as long as my fellow Christians do not withdraw from me due to my position, then I expect continued fellowship with those who disagree with me on this compelling subject. But my humble opinion, for those who haven’t quite figured it out yet, is that the Holy Spirit actually dwells in the physical bodies of Christians.7

However, when some, in order to defend their position that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian only in and through the Word, begin to make God in man’s image, subject to the same limitations as the creatures He created, I wish to make it clear that such are engaged in idolatry. In my opinion, there is no excuse for such thinking. Nevertheless, teachers of God’s Word, seemingly without any embarrassment at all, make all sorts of spatial-limiting arguments for why it is supposedly impossible for the Holy Spirit to actually and equally occupy all the bodies of all obedient believers.

I believe at least some of the reasons for this is that, unfortunately, many Christians today have drunk deeply at the humanist-materialist well. These give lip-service to omnipresence, but then define it in such a way as to effectively deny it. This is, as I’ve said, nothing but orthotalksy. If God is omnipresent, then don’t expect me to be impressed by arguments that claim He can’t be in more than one place at a time, and if He were, He’d be divided into pieces (or clones) of Himself. This is not just poppycock, but is a manifestation of unbelief, and anyone who claims to be a teacher of God’s Word while making such a claim ought to be ashamed of himself.

It needs to be understood that God’s omnipresence does not prevent Him from manifesting Himself in a localized place. In fact, while it is true that His ontological Being is present to all of space equally, He has, at various times and for various reasons, entered space at specific points and become present in it. These “theophanies,” as they are called, most often involved redemption. There was, for instance, the account of God’s presence in the garden of Eden “in the cool of the evening.”8 There was His appearance before the Israelites as a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night.9 Of course, the most dramatic case of God entering time and space was the Incarnation itself.10 But, and this point needs to be clearly understood, in entering time and space, God, in His self-existent, eternal and infinite Being, did not cease to be omnipresent. He was, while existing as Jesus of Nazareth, still present to every point of space and was, in fact, holding everything together by the “word of His power.”11 With this in mind, it seems evident that the omnipresence of Immanuel or “God with us” is the real subject of John 3:13, which says, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of God who is in heaven.”

I’ve heard people say they didn’t know what this passage was saying, but they knew it couldn’t mean what folks like me think it means. This isn’t exactly cogent exegesis, if you ask me. Nevertheless, some among us are confident that the ontological presence of the Word, who was Himself God, could not be on earth, in the body of Jesus of Nazareth, and be in heaven at the same time. I suppose it could be that this difficult passage is not saying what I think it’s saying, but the teacher of God’s Word who claims that it “can’t be” is clearly not taking into consideration the omnipresence of Jehovah’s ontological Being—a Being not limited by time and space. Yes, I know the concept is mind-boggling, but such is, I believe, characteristic of the magnificent nature of Almighty God. When contemplating the nature of God, it is not detrimental to have our minds boggled a bit.

It has been my experience that when one moves off of center on a particular Bible subject, he’s probably off on something else as well. Why? Because the Word of God, which is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”12 is a palliative against false doctrine. If we take a wrong position on something, we can be sure other passages will confront our wrong interpretation and, if we are amenable, they will surely correct our error. However, when we come to a conclusion that a particular interpretation is right, and we are unwilling to be corrected, convinced beyond all doubt that our position is the right one, we will surely have to misinterpret and misapply other passages that impinge our belief. In other words, the Word of God, if we will let it, when properly understood and believed, will make us “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”13 The starting point for all this is, of course, Genesis 1:1. Failing to grasp the implications here will surely cause us to misunderstand some critical aspects of the nature of both God and His creation. Therefore, it behooves us to spend a little time thinking about the implications of Genesis 1:1.

On the basis of creation texts such as Genesis 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22-23, it can be argued that time, at least physical time, had a “beginning.” In fact, Genesis 1:1, which is neither a subordinate clause nor a summary title, says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” According to James Barr, this was an absolute beginning which, when taken with the expression, “So the evening and the morning were the first day” (verse 5), indicates this was, in fact, the very first day, which may well be intended to teach that “the beginning” was not just the beginning of the physical universe, but the beginning of time itself and that, therefore, God may be thought of as timeless.14 In this statement, Barr appears to reflect what Jude said so succinctly: “To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.”15 When this is coupled with Proverbs 8:22-23, which clearly looks back to “the beginning,” it can be fairly said that the Old Testament implies that time started at the beginning. Add to this Jude’s statement mentioned above, along with John 1:1-3, which says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made,” and it seems clear that the Bible teaches the beginning of the creation was not just the beginning of space and matter, but it was the beginning of time as well.

If all this is true, and I think there is not much doubt about it, then the Creator, at least before He created, was neither subject to time (i.e., He was timeless) nor space. In addition, as the immortal and eternal God,16 He did not, indeed He could not, consist of the material nature (matter) of His creation. He was, in fact, totally other (i.e., transcendent). All this stands in stark contrast with creation, which by virtue of its creation owes its existence to something outside itself (viz., God). It is in this regard that we are said to live, move and have our being in the Creator.17 How, then, are some New Testament Christians able to claim that God is somehow limited by space or time?

It is only God, by virtue of who He is, who is free from the constraints of the space-time continuum. And it should be clear that the God who is not so free can never be anything more than one of the small “g” gods of orthotalksy. It is simply not possible that the one true God can be divided or torn asunder, and anyone who thinks so, no matter what position on the Holy Spirit he defends, is not honoring the God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. It is impossible for the omnipresent God to be “scattered…into thousands, perhaps millions, of fully functional, self-contained, independent units, each one the perfect clone of all the others.” In fact, the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible is a God who could make Himself known in a million simultaneous theophanies and still be present to all the rest of creation at the same time. He could indwell a multitude of Christians equally, and all at the same time, without diminishing Himself in the least. He can do all this not because He is a spirit, but because He is God, the uncreated Spirit, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.”18

Christians, particularly those who teach God’s Word, must not transfer to God any of the creaturely limitations. As the Creator, He is simply not subject to them. Along these lines, it is interesting to me that modern science, which hasn’t always been especially friendly to the Creator, has started to bow in His direction. Although I believe “big bang” cosmology to be inconsistent with the Biblical account of creation, and therefore wrong, nevertheless, it is most interesting to hear scientists conclude that time and space came into existence at “the beginning” of the universe. The British physicist, Paul Davies, typifies what I’m talking about:

If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event, the creation not only of all the matter and energy of the universe, but also of spacetime itself.19

Others, addressing this same thing, assert: “At this singularity, space and time came into existence, literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated as such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.”20

This aspect of current cosmological theory is especially troubling for some scientists, particularly those with atheistic beliefs. For example, the Russian astrophysicist, Andrei Linde, acknowledges, rather candidly, the problem that such a model poses for him: “The most difficult aspect of this problem is not the existence of the singularity itself, but the question of what was before the singularity…. This problem lies somewhere at the boundary between physics and metaphysics.”21

Sounds to me like Fred Hoyle’s old “steady-state” theory (viz., an eternal universe) with its well-known dictum Exnihilo, nihil fit (“Out of nothing, nothing comes”) has finally bitten the dust. As philosopher William Lane Craig says, “The steady state model has been abandoned by virtually everyone.”22

So, the theory most scientists subscribe to today is the big bang model, especially the inflationary version. Again, I am not arguing that this theory is correct. In fact, I totally reject the 15 billion years this theory postulates for the universe. I mention it here because it argues that the expanding universe necessarily had a beginning, and that it did not begin to expand into already existing space, but that it was space itself—which prior to the big bang had not existed—that was expanding outwards, with the alleged cosmic expansion creating space as it went along.

Now, if scientists who are limited, in the things they do, to the material creation—although it is true they don’t always act like they are—can understand the universe had a beginning, and that such a creation would have to be created ex nihilo or “out of nothing,” then I should think that modern-day Christians who are, generally speaking, the best educated the world has ever known, should not fail to understand the profound implications of such a creation: namely, that the Creator is over and above time, space and all finite reality, and can no more be confined to space than He can be measured by time.

It is inescapable that if something exists now, one of three things must be true of it: (1) it is either eternal, (2) it is created by something that is eternal, or (3) it is self-created. The first option is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, since an eternal universe would have wound down or dissipated a long time ago. The third clashes not only with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but with logic’s Law of Contradiction, because in order to have created itself, the universe would have had to exist before it existed, an idea that is scientifically and philosophically ridiculous. This leaves only the second option, and the God extolled in this series satisfies all the necessary criteria of such a Creator. Natural revelation, when properly interpreted, points at a Being whose existence explains why science can explain anything, but why it cannot explain everything. As the famous and erudite Mr. Stephen Hawking has said about the big bang theory, “It would be difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us.”23 Commenting on this, William Lane Craig wrote:

Since everything that began to exist has a cause of its existence, and since the universe began to exist, we conclude, therefore, that the universe has a cause of existence. We ought to ponder long and hard over this truly remarkable conclusion, for it means that transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo…. This conclusion ought to stagger us, ought to fill us with a sense of awe and wonder at the knowledge that our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it.24

Finally, the high-profile astronomer, Robert Jastrow, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in an article in the New York Times, asked the question: “Have Astronomers Found God?” His answer was that they had, or had at least come close to doing so. After arguing that the universe had a beginning in time, and after accepting that its creation by an act of God was a reasonable possibility [Jastrow is a professed agnostic], he went on to point out that astronomical evidence points to a theistic view of the world: “The details differ, but the essential elements…are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”25

His final words in this article were quite appropriate to our study:

This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians…. We scientists did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning because we have had until recently such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time…. At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.26

Brethren, let us “act like men”27 in the midst of a lost and dying world.28 Let us determine to know and proclaim the Rock who is our salvation.29 As we do so, let us forever put away from us the sham gods of orthotalksy.


Notes

After reading the footnote, make sure you hit the back button on the browser to return to text.


  1. See Jude 3.
  2. See 1 Corinthians 13:8-13.
  3. See Cottrell, What The Bible Says About God The Creator, pages 264-273.
  4. See Psalm 139:7-10; Jeremiah 23:23-24; 1 Kings 8:27.
  5. See Jude 6.
  6. Daniel 10:12-13.
  7. See 1 Corinthians 3:19 and 3:16-17.
  8. Genesis 3:8ff.
  9. See Exodus 33:9; 40:34; 1 Kings 8:10ff.
  10. See John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16.
  11. Hebrews 1:3; see also Colossians 1:17.
  12. 2 Timothy 3:16f.
  13. 2 Timothy 3:17.
  14. James Barr, Biblical Words for Time, 1962, pages 145-147.
  15. Jude, ASV of 1901.
  16. See Deuteronomy 33:27; Romans 16:26; 1 Timothy 1:17.
  17. See Acts 17:28.
  18. See 1 Timothy 1:17; Jude 25.
  19. “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology and Black Hole Evaporation,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J.T. Fraser, N. Lawrence, and D. Park, 1978, pages 78-79.
  20. John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986, page 442.
  21. “The Inflationary Universe,” Reports on Progress in Physics 47, 1984, page 976.
  22. Reasonable Faith, page 103.
  23. A Brief History of Time, page 140.
  24. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, page 149..
  25. June 25, 1978.
  26. Ibid.
  27. 1 Corinthians 16:13.
  28. See Philippians 2:15.
  29. See 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:7.