Good Friday is Really Good!

Unlike the UK and USA, Good Friday is a public holiday in Australia -- and rightly so! Good Friday is good.

Here's a great vid for thinking about the cross.

After that check out Scot McKnight's reflection An Atoning Death.

And if you doubt the importance of the Christus Victor view of the atonement then go and sing a few lines from the hymn Christ Alone: "And as he stands in victory, sins curse has lost its grip on me!".

Happy Good Friday!

The Father is Merciful

I remember seeing Rob Bell's clip where he asks the question whether Jesus saves us from the Father! An orthodox theology (i.e., one that is Trinitarian) would say emphatically "no!" because the cross is a triune event. Here are some words from Bruce McCormack on the subject:

“If the Father were not mercifully inclined toward the human race all along, why would he have sent his only Son into this world in the first place? Surely, a determination to be merciful and forgiving must precede and ground the sending of the Son into the world to die in our place. Surely forgiveness is not elicited from the Father (grudgingly?) by what Christ did on our behalf; it is rather effected by the Father in and through Christ’s passion and death. So the picture of an angry God the Father and a gentle and self-sacrificial Son who pays the ultimate price to effect an alteration in the Father’s ‘attitude’ fails to hit the mark.”[1]

---

[1] Bruce L. McCormack, “The Ontological Presuppositions of Barth’s Doctrine of the Atonement,” in The Glory of the Atonement, ed. C.E. Hill and F.A. James (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004) 366 (346-66).

For Whom Did Christ Die? Three Views!

Some time tomorrow I'll be putting up three short blog entries from three different scholars all answering the question "For Whom Did Christ Die?" in about 250-300 words. The line-up of scholars includes:

Paul Helm (Calvinist View)
Michael Jensen (Amyraldian View)
Ben Witherington (Arminian View)

It is a ripper, so stay tuned!

For Whom Did Christ Die? - Paul Helm (Calvinist View)

According to Paul Helm (Highland Theological College):

‘Definite atonement’ is an improvement on ‘Limited atonement’, but neither phrase clearly captures and expresses the idea, which is not exclusively to do with the atonement. The view is that the Triune God ensures the salvation of men and women, boys and girls. He does not merely make possible their salvation, leaving it to the sinner to make up his own mind. Rather, whom he intends to save, he saves, through the distinct but inseparable work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As Augustine puts it in his letter to Simplicianus in AD 396, God’s grace is effectual, effective, actually ensuring that those ordained to eternal life believe, secured by the golden chain of Romans 8.

What is at issue is an estimate of divine grace. The biblical basis for the view does not rest upon a single proof verse, or a few of these, (though verses such as John 6.37 and Acts 13.48 and of course Romans 8 28f should be borne in mind). Rather it is founded on the implications of Scripture’s overall witness to God’s powerful love, to the spiritual death of fallen mankind, and to the actual salvation of countless people.

By contrast, the Arminius-inspired view leaves the outcome of the work of redemption uncertainly suspended upon human choice, even though valiant efforts are made to link it to the divine foreknowledge, though in a weaker-than-biblical sense. And the Amyraldian view is in danger of upsetting the unity of the Trinity, and confounding the work of the preacher, heralding the grace of God indiscriminately to all, with the work of God. Through such means as preaching, God brings his elect to be justified, and to be sanctified, and to be glorified, calling them all out of darkness into his marvellous light.

For Whom Did Christ Die? - Michael Jensen (Amyraldian View)

According to Michael Jensen (Moore Theological College):

Like the great evangelical Calvinist preacher Charles Simeon once said: "I refuse to be more consistent than the Bible!" Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). He died to reconcile all things in heaven and earth (Col 1:15-20). But, he lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11). The most significant problem for the limited/definite atonement position is of course that the text of Scripture tells against it again and again. This is not in doubt! One only has to read John Owen's text-twisting in The Death of Death to realize that a system is driving exegesis. If all are not finally saved, it shall not be for any deficiency in Christ's sacrifice, but rather because of their unbelief (contra high Calvinsim). And if any are saved, it will be entirely on account of the work of the Son on the cross and the Holy Spirit effecting the regeneration of the believer (contra Arminianism). As Calvin himself writes: "Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him... It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world." This is not an affirmation of the Arminian view which elevates human free choice over election - though the dispute with Arminianism is not so much to do with the extent of the atonement, but more over the nature and significance of election. Anglican evangelical bishop J.C. Ryle wrote: "I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system".

For Whom Did Christ Die? - Ben Witherington (Arminian View)

According to Ben Witherington (Asbury Theological Seminary):

Christ died for the sins of the world, and to ransom that world. 1 Tim. 2.4-5 puts the matter succinctly. God our savior "wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all people." One could compare this to John 3.17, God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but to save the world, or the repeated refrain in Hebrews that Christ died once for all time, for all persons, and so on. (See the discussion of these matters in my forthcoming volumes on NT Theology and Ethics entitled The Indelible Image).

But this is not just a matter of finding sufficient proof texts (of which there are many more), it is a matter of one's theology of the divine character. God is love, holy love, to be sure, but nonetheless love, and as 1 Tim. 2.4 says, the desire of God's heart is that all persons be saved. It is not just the elect whom God loves, but as John 3.16 says, the world, for whom Christ was sent to die. It follows from this that Christ's atoning death is sufficient for the salvation of all persons, but only efficient for those who respond in faith to God's gracious provision of redemption.

Even more foundational is the understanding of the meaning of saying that God is love. Among other things, this means God is committed to relating to those created in his image in love. Now real love must be freely given, and freely received. It cannot be predetermined, manipulated, coerced or else it becomes contrary to what the Bible says love is (see 1 Cor. 13). In the debate between whether the primary trait of God is God's sovereignty or God's love, it seems clear that God exercises his power in love, and for loving ends. Even his acts of judgment, short of final judgment, are not meant to be punitive but rather corrective and restorative. God in short, is unlike vindictive human beings, very unlike them. Thus Hosea relates that God says "All my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger ... For I am God and not a human being." God, the divine parent, is not less loving than the best of human parents, God is more loving. If Christ is the perfect incarnation of the character of God, then the answer to the question, for whom did Christ die, becomes theologically self-evident--- for the world which God created and still loves.

Graham Cole on the Atonement

Graham Cole (Systematics Lecturer at TEDS and an Australian, ergo, everything he says is true and simultaneously brilliant) has new book on the atonement entitled, God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom. I've wrestled with the issue of the place of penal substitution (PS) in biblical theology. In my mind, PS is clearly taught in Scripture (e.g. Mark 10:45; Gal 3:13; Rom 8:3), but is it THE central atonement motif or is it derivative from another. I. Howard Marshall and Thomas Schreiner present a good case that PS is the predominant atonement motif in the NT undergirding all the others, although I do find the Christus Victor theme attractive as a possible controlling premise as well. Any how, in an interview with Andy Naselli, Graham Cole says:

"Penal substitution provides a good example. It seems to me that following the biblical plotline, the first note struck is the Christus Victor one (i.e., the defeat of evil) in the protevangelium (first gospel) set out in Genesis 3:15. But how is the evil one defeated? The grounds of accusation need to be removed that stand against us, and the fear of death that is the devil’s tool needs to be addressed as well. The cross of Christ disarms the evil one by removing the grounds of accusation against us (Col 2). Christ died in our place (1 Peter 2)), experienced the righteous divine wrath that we deserve (Rom 5) and so, if we are in Christ, there is no condemnation (Rom 8). Because we stand clothed in Christ’s righteousness we will not face the divine judgment of the great white throne for our sins (Rev 20). Our names are in the Lamb’s book of life. The fear of death, which lies in judgment, is thereby addressed (Heb 2). Evangelicals in my view need to do more justice to the Christus Victor theme and in so doing find that penal substitution is integral or central to it."

HT: Andy Naselli.

Atonement is Too Small

Over at CT, David Neff has a review of Scot McKnight's book, A Community Called Atonement.

Scot McKnight: A Community Called Atonement

I've just got around to re-reading Scot McKnight's volume A Community Called Atonement from the Living Theology series edited by Tones Jones (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007). To put this book in context, the great writings on the atonement by a previous generation of great scholars (Leon Morris, J.I. Packer, and John Stott) focused on defending key doctrines like penal substitution, propitiation, and justification over and against an onslaught of assaults. However, today the battle ground has shifted some what. The doctrine wars have been fought and won (for the most part) within evangelicalism, but now the challenge is "what difference does it make?". The question evangelicals in their 20s and 30s are asking is not, does the Bible teach penal substitution, but what mileage does one get out of believing in it? A generation of young Christians (and I count myself among them) are dissatisfied with bumper sticker slogans like "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" which sounds like an apology for a person with right doctrinal beliefs but lives no different from unchurched Harry or pagan Peter. That's a fraud and pomo folk can smell it a mile off. My Theology lecturer at college once to the story of a church that held an evangelistic outreach event but the congregation failed to invite anyone to it. When a survey was done to find out why no-one invited their non-Christian friends along, one person answered that "the gospel was not working in my life so I thought it would be a sham to invite someone else to consider it". This, I reckon, is the problem; what difference does the atonement make in life and living? Scot's book then is a welcomed corrective on two fronts: (a) he situates the atonement in the wider span of redemptive-history as he relates the cross to the Adam/Israel story, to Jesus' kingdom message, to the resurrection, and to Pentecost, and he also shows theTrinitarian nature of the atonement as well; and (b) he demonstrates how the atonment is transformative at both the personal and communal level.

Scot clearly believes in penal substitution (PS). The question is whether PS is merely one club in the golf bag, or whether PS is the golf bag itself from which the various clubs are drawn out of. Scot argues that no single theory of the atonement is the "fairest one of all" and all are part of the golfer's (i.e. Christian's soteriolgoical) repertoirre. I am sympathetic to the arguments of I. Howard Marshall, Thomas Schreiner, and Mike Ovey et. al. that PS is the golf bag itself or the central atonement theme which drives all the others like Passover sacrifice, Christus Victor, Reconciliation, etc. However, the looming doubt in my mind is created by the Book of Acts where PS does not appear at all, rather, Luke focuses on forgiveness of sins, status reversal, and the gift of the Spirit. Why does this deposit of apostolic preaching contain so little reference to the cross let alone PS if PS is THE central doctrine of the New Testament? Scot is fairly well balanced overall here. He rejects the allegation that PS amounts to child abuse but also asks advocates of PS to listen to their critics. He adds that the atonement needs to be orientated in the Trinitarian life of God and the atonement reflects both God's wrath and love. For Scot though, the bag that holds all the clubs together (recapitulation, ransom, satisfaction, substitution, representation, and penal substitution) is what he calls Identification and Incorporation which he gleams from Heb. 2.14-18 and is probably best understood as a modified verions of the recapitulation theory.

On justification, Scot maintains that justification is indeed "forensic" and he freely uses the concept of "imputation". What is added by Scot, however, are his observations that justification relates to the story of Adam-Israel-Jesus, it brings Gentiles into one family with Jews, justification is part of God's act of making the whole world right, and he gives a polite nod to the New Perspective on Paul in so far as that justification needs to be given a more relational understanding.

The final section of the book, "Atonement as Praxis: Who Does Atonement?" is worth the price of the book and is well worth reading if you're getting ready for Easter. Scot covers topics such as Atonement and Fellowship, Atonement and Justice, Atonement and Mission, Atonement and Living the Story, and Atonement and Baptism, Eurcharist, and Prayer. So put down your Left Behind novel and stop watching "Lost" and read this section if anything this year.

There are one or two things I'd tweak in this book. For instance, I'd like more on sin as rebellion and I wonder if Scot pushes the broken eikon thing a bit too far at times. But otherwise this is a classic resource on the atonement, it is eminently readable but certainly not simplistic. Anyone interested in asking the question "what difference does it make?" should read this book.

Jesus died in order to ... make the church

When we think of the purpose of Jesus' death according to the New Testament the first thing that often comes to our minds is the function of Jesus' death in relation to the salvation of individuals in terms of justification, redemption, reconciliation, etc. But I think that a much neglected function of Jesus' death is to reconstitute Israel as the new people of God comprized of Jews and Gentiles united in one body. Two texts highlight this:

1. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:13-14).

Here Paul sets forth the purpose of Christ's death as redemptive, not just of sinners in general, but to incorporate Gentile sinners into the worldwide Abrahamic family. The "Gentile sinners" are not merely redeemed so that they can go to heaven, they are redeemed so that they will be part of the people of God and participate in the life of the Spirit.

2. Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life (John 11:49-53).

I think this passage is an example of the two levels of John's Gospel (literal and ironic). According to Caiaphas, Jesus is to die for the nation, that is, in order to prevent the Romans from needing to intervene in a tumultuous riot sparked by messianic hopes (i.e. so let's kill him before they over react). Ironically, Jesus does die for the nation, as the Lamb of God, but he also dies in order to fulfill the divine promises that God would against reconstitute the tribal league of Israel. Caiaphas is an unwitting mouthpiece for the declaration that Jesus fulfills the hope of Israel. That hope includes the end of the dispersion/exile of the majority of the Jewish people from Judea.

Kruse reviews McKnight's new book on the Atonement

Michael Kruse reviews Scot McKnight's new book: A Community Called Atonement. Should be one to watch out for!

Howard Marshall's new book

The Christian understanding of the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ and its relationship to the salvation of sinful humanity is currently the subject of intense debate and criticism.The papers covering this important area are expanded versions of the 2006 series of Chuen King Lectures given in the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

In the first two chapters Howard Marshall discusses the nature of the human plight in relation to the judgment of God and then offers a nuanced defence of the doctrine of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for sinners. The third chapter examines the place of the resurrection of Christ as an integral part of the process whereby sinners are put in the right with God. In the final chapter argues that in our communication of the gospel today the New Testament concept of reconciliation may be the most comprehensive and apt expression of the lasting significance of the death of Christ.

I. Howard Marshall is Emeritus Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Honorary Research Professor at the University of Aberdeen.

I have seen the third chapter of this book and it is well written and persuasively builds a case that justification is indebted to the resurrection as well as the cross (for those who have read SROG, you'll know that such a conclusion is dear to my heart). The book is available directly from Paternoster.

Jesus' Life, Death, and the Atonement

Steve Bryan in his (luke-warm) review of Scot McKnight's book, Jesus and His Death, in the March edition of JETS, has a very good introduction to his review:

In teaching courses on Jesus, I have often asked this question: "Would it matter if Jesus had died in a rickshaw accident in Calcutta or by a stray bullet in inner-city Los Angeles or as a tuberculosis victim in Addis Ababa as long as he died as the sinless Son of God?" My purpose in asking this question is to provoke students to consider the way in which evangelical soteriology is often abstracted from the historical circumstances in which Jesus lived and died, cut off from the story of Israel and often even from the story of Jesus' own life. Many evangelicals have never considered the way in which the individual confession that "Jesus died for me", or the universal confession that "Jesus died for the word" is tied in Scripture to the particular story of God's dealings with Israel. The reticence of evangelicals to take up the study of the historical Jesus is perhaps symptomatic of the real challenge that such study presents to evangelical theology. That is not to say that evangelical soteriology need be threatened by the study of Jesus as a person with aims and intentions that were sensible within a first-century Jewish context. Rather, it is simply to point out that much evangelical soteriology is formulated in such a way as to take little accont of Jesus' own understanding of his death. Against this tendency, Scot McKnight's work faces squarely the historical question of Jesus' understanding of his death. There is much to praise in McKnight's work, but its greatest contribution is the clarion call to anchor soteriology in the mission of Jesus, especially in Jesus' interpretation of his death.

Wright on Penal Substitution

Alot is going on around the web about penal substitution esp. in relation to the views of Stephen Chalke, N.T. Wright, and a recent book edited by Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffery, and Andrew Sach (eds.) Pierced for our Transgressions (IVP). Jim Hamilton and Denny Burke add their comments. N.T. Wright responds to his critics on the Fulcrum website.

Here is a quote from NTW himself:

"No clearer statement is found in Paul, or indeed anywhere else in all early Christian literature, of the early Christian belief that what happened on the cross was the judicial punishment of sin. Taken in conjunction with 8:1 and the whole argument of the passage, not to mention the partial parallels in 2 Cor 5:21 and Gal 3:13, it is clear that Paul intends to say that in Jesus’ death the damnation that sin deserved was meted out fully and finally, so that sinners over whose heads that condemnation had hung might be liberated from this threat once and for all."

Wright, ‘Romans,’ 10.574-75

Good Friday Reflection

I have a sermon called Gospelizing 101 where I exposit Rom. 3.21-26. There I reflect on God's righteousness and the atonement and I also go into 1 Pet. 2.24 which says: "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness". This lends itself to one of my favourite illustrations of the atonement:

During World War II, there was a group of Australian prisoners in a Japanese POW camp in South East Asia. One of the prisoners tried to escape in order to find some food. He was caught and sentenced to receive a flogging. His physical condition was so terrible that the beating would surely kill him. Knowing this, the chaplain of the camp offered to take the flogging in his place. The Japanese commandant was astounded by this as he had never understood Western morality and out of curiosity he gave permission for the chaplain to take the flogging. The chaplain was taken to a tree, stripped naken, tied up, and viscously flogged. The prisoner who tried to escape was forced to watch and he saw the Chaplain’s body being broken and bloodied by the whip as the chaplain was flogged until he lost consciousness and then flogged some more. Later he wrote in his diary, “It was at that moment that I finally understood the Bible when it says, ‘He himself bore our sins in his body when he hung upon the tree’.”.