Testing Tradition

 [12] Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, [13] not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. [14] But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. [15] Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:12–15, ESV) I recently watched a message on YouTube that a brother shared with me on the topic of biblical cosmology.  This message challenged my thinking because in it the speaker shared a teaching that I think I can honestly say I had never heard before.  I've thought about that message alot since first listening to it a couple weeks ago.  And I've listened to it three times in total to make sure I'm listening well.  I want to be slow to speak and quick to listen. I have the utmost respect for the process the spe...

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?  Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? (Psalm 22:1, ESV) These words are so central to the traditional evangelical understanding of the cross of Jesus Christ that their sentiment echoes in the songs we sing, most notably: How great the pain of searing loss— The Father turns His face away, As wounds which mar the Chosen One Bring many sons to glory. But is this really what's happening on the cross?  The Father turns His face away from the Son?  The Father forsakes the Son?  The Father is considering His Son to be a cursed criminal instead of the apple of His eye?  I want to make the case, on the basis of the Scriptures, that this is not what's happening.  I would submit that throughout Jesus' entire experience of the cross, the Father never stopped viewing His Son as the apple of His eye with whom He is fully well-pleased. Psalm 9 The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in...

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV) This is a lynchpin text for the traditional Protestant understanding of double imputation.  John Piper is just one example of the many who understand this verse as "the great exchange": This is the great exchange. Here it is again in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” God lays our sins on Christ and punishes them in him. And in Christ’s obedient death, God fulfills and vindicates his righteousness and imputes (credits) it to us. Our sin on Christ; his righteousness on us. If I buy an item of clothing from the mall for my daughter and find when I get home that she likes it but it's either too small or too big, I would take it back to the store to exchange it for the same item in a different size that better fits her.  This exchange means that th...

Traditional protestant theology holds that the logic of the cross is that Jesus experienced something instead of His people .  In other words, He experienced something on the cross so that we don't have to.  He is substituted for His people on the cross. In what follows, I want to offer several passages to make the case that this actually is incorrect.  The logic of the cross is instead that Jesus experienced something that we might share in that experience with Him , both His experience of death and resurrection.  His people participate with Him on the cross. And these two are necessarily mutually exclusive.  The cross can't be both substitutionary and participatory because, by definition, substitution requires that the one being substituted for isn't participating.  When a class has a substitute teacher, that necessarily means that the regular teacher isn't participating in teaching the classroom that day.  If the regular teacher is there, then ano...

Note: In the development of my thinking unpacked in this post, I am indebted to Andrew Rillera and what he has written in his superb book: Lamb of the Free , specifically the penultimate chapter (Chapter 7: When Jesus' Death Is Not a Sacrifice).  Before reading his book, the Greco-Roman understanding of hilasterion he discusses there had never been brought to my attention. [21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation (hilasterion) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show h...