God’s Sovereignty Over the Cross
Earlier we reflected on the nature of God’s sovereignty. We discovered that God works all things out of his own pleasure and according to the counsel of his will. These two aspects are most clearly seen in the event of Christ’s atoning death on the cross. Let’s first consider how it was God’s will all along for Jesus to be the once for all sacrifice for sin. For this we turn to Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:
Acts 2:22-23: Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know —this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
There are two important things to see in this passage. Peter acknowledges the sovereignty of God over both evil and the cross. The people who killed Jesus committed the most heinous crime ever committed.[1] Peter describes them as “lawless men.” Yet he maintains that Christ was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” Here again we see that God from eternity past had predetermined that Christ would suffer on the cross as an atonement for sin. This decree of God also included the necessary means for fulfillment, such as the betrayal of Judas and the unbelieving people who demanded his crucifixion. In this God displayed his sovereignty over evil in ordaining the lawlessness of Judas and the unbelieving community as well as his sovereignty over the cross. Throughout the narrative of the gospels (and the entire Old Testament!) we see the invisible hand of God orchestrating all the events to lead to the cross. Further evidence of this is given later in the book of Acts. In Acts 4:24-28 we learn that everyone who gathered against Jesus to kill him did whatever God’s hand and plan had predestined to take place, and in Acts 13:27-29 that they “carried out all that was written of him.” It is clear that God worked all the events of the cross according to the counsel of his will.
The second thing we need to examine is how it was the pleasure of God to have Christ crucified for sin. For this we turn to the prophet Isaiah:
Isaiah 53:10: Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
It was the will (or pleasure) of God to bruise Christ. This is in full accordance with our earlier observations, that “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (Psalm 115:3). God was pleased to magnify the worth of his name in Christ by giving sinners through the cross the right and power to delight in God without obscuring the glory of God. Both Father and Son were totally unified in this from all eternity, and thus there was no disagreement or hesitancy within the Godhead that the Son should be crushed for sin. It was totally and absolutely the pleasure of God to save sinners through the atoning death of Christ on the cross.
Further evidence that the “will of the Lord” here implies the pleasure of God is given in two other passages in Isaiah. In Isaiah 1:11 God says, “I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats,” and in Isaiah 62:4 says of his people, “You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate, but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married; for the Lord delights in you, and your land shall be married.” The word for “delight” in both of these passages is the same word that’s used in the first line of Isaiah 53:10, “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him.” It was the will, or delight, or pleasure of God to crush the Son.
But how could God delight in bruising his Son? Wouldn’t it grieve the Father to put to death his only Son? Part of the answer is given in the verse itself. The Father is pleased in what is accomplished through the death of his Son. This is implied by the phrase “the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” Through his death Christ won salvation for “his offspring” and was granted prolonged days, referring to his resurrection from the dead back to life. Also, verse 11 tells us that through “the anguish of his soul” he would “make many to be accounted righteous.” In other words, Christ’s death on the cross would serve as the basis for our justification.
But there is another reason. There was a fundamental problem that the cross was meant to solve. That problem was that God’s commitment to his glory required atonement for sin. Sin undermines the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and for hundreds of years God had forgiven sin without the recompense of a perfect substitute. This threw the righteousness of God into question. The very glory of God was at stake. Christ’s death on the cross solves this problem by vindicating the infinite worth of God’s glory as the perfect substitute for sin. Thus, when the Father bruised his Son, he was not demonstrating any lack of love for the Son. The Father knew that the Son had infinite love for the glory of God, and in this the Father took deep delight. Both Father and Son were completely unified in mission to uphold and display the infinite value of the glory of God and to free sinners from bondage into everlasting joy in God.
The implications of this for us are immense. God has from before the foundation of the world intended to redeem us from slavery to sin through the death of his Son. The depths of God’s love for us and for his glory are so great, and our sin so wretched, so infinitely deserving of eternal punishment, that it cost the death of Christ to save us. What amazing grace this is! “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” (Rom. 8:31-32).
[1] Given that Peter is speaking to thousands of people (about 3,000 were saved!) who weren’t even present at the crucifixion, the implications of this are incredible for our conception of our own sinful nature. Peter claims that even though they were not there and had no immediate involvement with the crucifixion, they nevertheless were responsible for killing Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment