 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
Reconciliation
For J.I. Packer
Systematic Theology Overview
4-8-81
Joel Gillespie
The Bible can be said to be an account of the relationship between the Creator of all things and His special creature, man, who has “fallen” from God, and for whom God must in His grace continually work to bring into conformity with His law and will, and into the blessings of His love. The Christian doctrines of Creation and New-Creation express clearly that God created man in love in order to bless him, and not primarily to simply test him or gain something from him, but to allow him (man) to share in the goodness and joy of fellowship with Him (God). In the experience of man throughout the centuries, and in the Scriptural witness, it is seen clearly that man is not in fact in that state of fellowship with God for which he was created, and that, in fact, there exists a great chasm between God and man, a chasm greater than rebellious man, apart from the revelation of Christ, could ever adequately appreciate even from his own sense of incompleteness and guilt. Yet, in the revelation of the cross, he becomes aware of the immense nature of that gap between himself and his Creator, and the overpowering, overwhelming love of God expressed in the bridging of that gap. In the cross lies the basis of the great reunion between Creator and Creature. This is perhaps the central theme of the New Testament, and the presumption of all its most wonderful teachings – life in Christ, life in the Spirit, adoption, sonship, joy, glory, and resurrection.
This paper is an attempt to explore one side of this great theme – the given, objective nature of the great act of reconciliation, the act above all acts in space-time history. It is an attempt by the writer to gain insight into what is the basis of real acceptance, or rightness, or OK-ness before his Lord and Creator, and to express those insights in “his own words.” Focusing primarily on the finished aspect of reconciliation, the paper will not explore man’s response, or the subjective nature of reconciliation, in any detail. First will be presented a short analysis of the need for reconciliation itself, and for a reconciliation that is objective. Next, the key sections and verses associated with this word “reconciliation” will be outlined as to their contents, and finally, some implications of this to the theological debate will be examined.
The reconciling work of God in Christ in restoring man to communion with Himself, and Himself to communion with man, can only be understood when seen against the underlying reality of the wrath of God against sin and sinners. Take away from the Gospel message this reality, and the good news merely ceases to be news at all. God’s repulsion against sin and His punishment of sin must be taken seriously; for one can view the reconciliatory work of God with eyes of thankfulness only when one becomes aware of one’s state apart from God’s saving work. What the Bible declares throughout is that the problem is not man’s finiteness, his creatureliness, or even his ignorance, but his sin, and the guilt that his sin creates. This sin and guilt really matters to God in His relation to man.
The problem or breach existing between God and man can be best understood from the different angles from which Scripture approaches the situation. The first of these is the holiness of God. God is holy. He is set apart, above, transcendent, other. His character is the basis for what we call pure and right and good. In God’s intensely personal relation to man, his holiness takes on a moral or ethical aspect. He cannot look upon or have fellowship and communion with that which is so contrary to his character. Berkhof states: “In virtue of His holiness, God can have no communion with sin.(1)”
And this repulsion is not only against sin, but against the person who sins. “The face of the Lord is against evildoers” (Psalms 34:16). The law, both the specific law given to Israel and the general moral order which exists in creation, is an expression of the real character of God; violation of this order and law is both a violation of that which proceeds from the true character of God and is an attack on God himself as creator and lawgiver. For God to look upon impurity and overlook a personal assault upon Himself would be for Him to be other than which He is. Reality would be altered, or would simply cease to have order. This is the nature of things. One can try to explain why God must be so, but the Scriptural witness is simply that He is so.
Second, the doctrine of original sin, the reality of man’s inherent impurity and his inherent drive to sin, becomes a real problem for the restoration of communion between God and man. For if man is impure in his very nature, and bound to sin, and if God cannot look upon impurity, man’s separation from God is sealed. He cannot purify his heart, his affections, his motives, his evil bent, i.e. he cannot truly repent. He is helpless to bring about his restoration to God by himself.
Third, the forensic notion of guilt provides one with another way to see the problem. When man sins he becomes “indebted” to God. There exists an affront to God in sin, which, the moment it has been carried out, becomes “past,” or “on the books.” In other words, man is accountable for those sins which are past as well for his “state” which is present. These past acts are irrevocable, finished. One could call this the “finished work of sin.” Says Brunner, “Guilt is the element in sin by which it belongs irrevocably to the past.(2)” When a life is taken seriously as a whole –, past, present, and future – then it is seen as lying under the dark shadow of past sin, about which a man is helpless to do anything.
Fourth, Scripture teaches very plainly that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Theologians and philosophers debate as to why this must be so – what is it about sin and guilt and God’s character that demands punishment be issued against the sinner. And though this debate may be very profitable, the very clear fact is that this is simply the case Scripturally speaking. God cannot leave sin unpunished. Since the creation of mankind in Eden, the punishment of disobedient and rebellious man has been death, both physical and spiritual. God has promised that death is the penalty of sin for the sinner. The horrible nature of that death as a separation from God is seen in the teaching of Jesus. What greater horror than the words “depart from me” (Math. 7:23; 25:41, Luke 13:27). “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God and you yourselves being cast out” (Luke 13:28). “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but these into eternal life” (Math 25:46). Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Math 25:12).
Death is the ultimate antithesis of fellowship with God and God’s intention to bless man. Death is the seal of the separation from the Father, the antithesis of what man is meant to be – the great absurdity. God’s wrath, resulting for man ultimately in this death, is His reaction and personal response to man’s sin. It is that face of God that man is bound to see, unless something is done which man cannot do for himself.
So, here is the reality. There exists a real gap between man and God resulting from man’s sin. Sin really matters to God. Left as it is, it creates an immovable barrier. God cannot overlook it; man cannot do anything about it. It is there in all its real objective significance, blocking fellowship and communion. Whatever is done about the situation must take this fully into account, while doing something really objectively significant about it.
Although reconciliation is part of the very essence of the Gospel message, the word itself is relatively rare in the New Testament. There exist four major passages, all Pauline, where this theme is spoken of in some detail. These are Rom. 5:1-11; 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 2:11-20; and Col. 1:19-23. Consideration of these passages reveals the following important points about the nature of this reconciliation.
1) Reconciliation is the work of God. It is His initiative and His love which moves to rectify the situation. God reconciles. He is the subject (2 Cor. 5:18,19; Rom. 5:6,8; Col. 1:22).
2) The reconciliation act was undertaken as an act of love, both of God the Father and Jesus himself. “God was in Christ” reconciling (2 Cor. 5:18). It is “the love of Christ” which compels Paul (2 Cor. 5:14). “God demonstrates his own love toward us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:3). For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile (Col. 1:19-20).
3) The reconciliation and the reconciliation both are brought about by the death of Christ. It is at the cross where reconciliation has occurred, as these expressions indicate:
a) “We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Rom. 5:10).
b) “…having now been justified by His blood” (Rom. 5:9).
c) “While we were still helpless Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6).
d) “He has now reconciled you in his fleshly body through death” (Col. 1:22).
e) “….having made peace through the blood of the cross” (Col1:20).
It appears that these terms are simply used interchangeably to refer to the same event Jesus’ death.
4) Man’s state prior to reconciliation is described in the following ways:
a) “while we were yet sinners” (Rom. 5:8).
b) “while we were still helpless” (Rom. 5:6).
c) “while we were enemies” (Rom. 5:10).
d) “formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in wild deeds” (Col. 1:21).
e) “formerly far off, separated from Christ having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).
f) “under the coming wrath of God” (Rom. 5:9).
g) “having trespasses that count against them” (2 Cor. 5:19).
5) As seen above, Christ’s death is that which is central in overcoming this state. There is a real and definite connection between the work of Christ and the sin of man. Other references describe this:
a) “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf” (2 Cor. 5:21).
b) “God was in Christ..not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor. 5:19).
Surely all the passages focus in on this connection.
6) The end purpose, or the nature of this reconciliation is also described:
a) “in order to present you holy, blameless, and without reproach” (Col. 1:22).
b) “therefore, if anyone is Christ he is a new creation,” (2 Cor. 5:17).
c) “we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the reconciliation (Rom. 5:11).
d) “having made peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20).
e) “that we might become righteous of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21).
f) “saved by His life”(Rom. 5:10).
g) “through Him having access to the Father” (Eph. 2:18).
7) The theme of reconciliation is closely intertwined with that of justification, new life, forgiveness, salvation, all of which together are rooted in the work of Jesus.
8) The work of reconciliation is something done that can be offered to man as an existing word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). This word was committed to Paul from God, and leads him as as ambassador, begging on God’s behalf, to man, that man “be reconciled to God.”
9) Man, as seen in #8, must respond to this act. In Christ, God was “reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19) and man must receive this “message of reconciliation.”
These passages must be understood in light of the reality of the wrath of God against sin, for in these verses God is the subject, reconciling man to Himself. However, it is clear that He reconciles man to Himself first by reconciling Himself to man. And this reconciling act is very costly to God. The question as to whether God sent Christ primarily in order to change man’s mind about God – to make him truly repent and to be no longer hostile and alienated in mind, is a question that overlooks God’s work on man’s behalf. In other words, it ignores the crucial effect which Christ’s death had upon God in establishing the basis for man’s faith and repentance. Yet it is still a more serious question than “Why can’t God just forgive?” Many ask why God had to send His Son to alleviate the problem of man’s sin and guilt and alienation. Was there not another way? The fact that God did so act in such a way assures one that this was the only way.
When the wrath of God and the guilt of man are taken seriously, the reconciliation as based on the death of Christ is seen in its full power – the power of salvation. The passages outlined above help in responding to some traditional questions.
Some Summary Thoughts
1) It is clearly seen that the God-head is by no means divided in this reconciling work. There is no hint that a Christ of love is trying to appease his angry Father for man’s sake, or that an unjust but loving Father is forcing His innocent Son to die an innocent death just so he can get his anger out of his system. Both the love of the Father and the Son are at work together. Neither must the full nature of this love be diminished by Anselm’s view that God had to fulfill his creation purpose to bless man and thus could not punish man, but, taking man’s sin seriously, He had to send His son to fulfill His creation purpose. Rather, it must be seen that while surely the sending of His Son had to happen (because it did happen) for reconciliation to take place, God did not have to act to restore fellowship. What is involved is not a mere rational necessity proceeding from the nature of God and His purpose in creation, but an overwhelming free gift of costly love. If such an act of love is necessity, and can be taken for granted, then it ceases to carry the power of the personal element of reconciliation and the truly personal nature of man’s sin. It ceases to be true grace. Anselm is right on in affirming the personal affront to God in Man’s sin, but somehow in Anselm’s theology of divine necessity God’s saving work loses this character of grace. Indeed, what necessity would call for is for God to punish man. Love overcomes necessity.
2) Christ’s death as a display of love for sinners is love only in that it does something about sin. Being real love it overcomes the real obstacle to fellowship. If his death is meant as only exemplary, it is, ultimately, absurd.
3) Christ’s death was on man’s behalf – it was a substitution for the wages due man for his sin. Christ paid the wage that man could not pay. He redeemed and ransomed man. And, in being substitutionary and redemptive, his death was also penal. The penalty of sin – the wages of sin – Christ suffered and paid.
4) This reconciliatory work is objective, i.e. it happened outside of man, something done and finished at a time when man was utterly helpless. God is subject and object, and herein is the mystery of the cross. Christ’s death does something about sin by doing something about wrath. Thus it is expiatory because it is propitiatory. In this work, the whole nature and course of reality has been changed – a “new thing” exists. God’s face towards his creatures can now be one of love. Now is the time of grace. Now this word of reconciliation – the gospel – can be offered to man.
5) The real love of God seen in the act of reconciliation, being outside of man while doing something about his sin, strips man absolutely of any pretense that he may receive acceptance in any other way than that of acknowledging the seriousness of his sin and his true helplessness before God. He is disarmed, muted, made naked. God is not a watery-eyed old man who just accepts man through thick and thin, a god who lives for man. But he is a God whose love is powerful and saving. And it is only as man stares helplessly into this chasm before him that the power of this love is manifest. This love is what speaks to the deepest need of man, because it acknowledges reality and does something about it. Only this type of love moves and empowers man to obey and say deeply “Thank you.” For in this chasm-bridging love there lies that which speaks personally to the very core of man the creature, so greatly in need of his creator God for his very life and being.
6) Finally, it is seen that in the life of Christ as well as His death, man is saved. Salvation is “in to” as well as “out of.” – in to life as well as out of death, in to fellowship, adoption, sonship, and inheritance as well as out of wrath and alienation and separation and hell. Man receives the righteousness of Christ in exchange for his sin. While an enemy, he is reconciled. How much more, being saved, will he enter into life – the life he was made for entering into all along.
Footnotes
(1) L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), p. 73.
(2) Emil Brunner, The Mediator, (Philadelphia: Westminister Press), p. 443.
Bibliography
Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939, pp. 73-76, 367-395.
Brunner, Emil. The Mediator, Philadelphia: Westminister Press, pp. 435-535.
Denny, James, DD. The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, London: James Clark & Co., 1959.
Forsyth, P.T. The Work of Christ, London: Fontana Library, 1965, pp. 1-145.
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, London: Tyndale Press, 1972.
Packer, J.I. Class notes #23, 24, “Systematic Theology,” RegentCollege, Vancouver, 1981. |
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
