The doctrine of penal substitution doesn’t, on the face of it, sound too glorious. It is a doctrine involving curse, punishment, blood and death. It is little wonder that people object to it so strenuously. Indeed, this teaching has been at the very center of a rift within the church—a rift that seems to be growing ever-wider and ever more visible. Once the realm of scholars cloistered away in the ivory towers of academia, the battle against this doctrine has recently reached the popular level and it has come under attack by influential and popular evangelical leaders. Needless to say, controversy has followed, and for good reason.
Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution is the product of Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach, all of whom are connected to Oak Hill Theological College in London, England. It carries a Foreword by John Piper. The book, published by Inter-Varsity Press, is currently available only in the U.K. (though rumors abound that it is available at a few stores in this part of the world). Crossway has secured the North American rights and will be releasing it on this side of the Atlantic in the fall.
The book is written for the serious and thoughtful general reader. Those who aspire to read nothing more complicated than Yancey or Lucado may find this a challenging, though surely enlightening, read. Those who tend towards works of serious theology will find it eminently readable. Those hoping for an exhaustive scholarly treatment of the subject will be disappointed.
The authors do not keep the reader waiting to learn what this doctrine entails. The first sentence of the first chapter is this: “The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.” They say, rightly, that this understanding of the cross stands at the very center of the gospel message as given us in the Bible. What may seem so coarse, so vulgar, so bloody is, must be seen to be beautiful by those whose lives have been transformed by the victory won at so great a cost. It is, as per the book’s subtitle, a glorious doctrine and one the church would do well to rediscover. While relatively few have renounced the doctrine, too few have even been explicitly aware of its existence.
The book’s content falls in two parts. In the first the authors make the case for penal substitution, looking to the Bible, to associated theology, to its pastoral importance and to its long historical pedigree in the Christian faith. In the second part they turn to the critics, answering the charges that have been lodged against the doctrine. While there is much value to be mined in the latter half, it is the former that is of most profound importance. It is here that the doctrine is laid out, it is here that it is defended. We see that this doctrine is found in both Testaments and that it is foundational to our understanding of Jesus’ mission, both in the way it was foreshadowed in the Old Testament through sacrifice and prophecy and in the way it was fulfilled and applied in the New. Though the authors are unable to provide an exhaustive treatment, something which could easily run to several volumes, they do provide a valuable overview of this doctrine’s biblical basis. They turn next to this doctrine’s place in the wider context of Christian theology, showing how it is inexorably connected to other Christian doctrine. After touching on the pastoral implications of maintaining the place of this doctrine, anticipating the charge that this theology is but a modern addition to Christianity, they defend it historically, showing how it has a historical pedigree that spans the two thousand years of church history. Finally, with the theology firmly in place, they move deliberately and confidently through objection after objection, charge after charge, responding to the critics of this doctrine. They are nothing if not thorough.
Endorsed by a veritable who’s who of conservative evangelicals, this book is sure to clearly delineate the divide between those who hold to the historic Protestant position on this doctrine and those who do not. It has already done this in the U.K. and we expect it to do the same on the other side of the Atlantic when it is released later this year. I pray that it is widely read, widely studied and widely influential. Jeffery, Ovey and Sach have done the church a service with this volume. I’m grateful for it and commend it to you.
You can buy it at Westminster Books or at Amazon:
Comments (31) »
1. Maria Rhodes
July 1, 2007
3:44 PM
How can anyone object to our Messiah’s being pierced for our transgressions? There can be only one of two reasons: either the person hasn’t significant transgressions that deserve punishment or he’d rather take his own punishment. For those aware of the depths of their own depravity the doctrine is essential to one’s sanity as well as salvation.
2. Josh
July 1, 2007
5:38 PM
Yancy and Lucado are not works of serious theology? I better update my bookshelf!!
In all seriousness, this is a very necessary work. The rift in America is truly widening every day as very influential (unnamed) authors call penal substitutionary atonement “divine child abuse”. You can google that phrase if you want.
The wolves has been let loose, sheep. We had best be on our guard at all times.
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who BOUGHT them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
2 Peter 2:1 (read the whole chapter!)
Lord have mercy!!!
3. wfseube
July 1, 2007
11:59 PM
Cool! A friend of mine sent this to me last week so I’d have some reading while I recover from surgery. I just started reading it today…so far, so good!
4. aj
July 2, 2007
7:21 PM
I’m a little lost about this doctrine,and would like some advice,not here to argue..
My question
If God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus on the cross instead of sinners,i presume that wrath was exhaustive ?
If yes why is anyone judged,how can there be wrath left ? It either was the punishment for sin or it wasn’t..
aj
5. Ken
July 2, 2007
9:14 PM
aj: Jesus bore in his body the sins of his people. But as the Scriptures make plain, not all human beings are his people.
If this sounds Calvinistic, it is; the doctrine of penal substitution is rightly understood within that framework. Arminian theologians are on record as affirming that the theory of atonement that best fits their soteriology is the governmental theory.
While waiting for this new book to come out, you could profitably read John Stott’s The Cross of Christ, which does a good job explaining the various aspects of Christ’s sufferings and death, including the idea of penal substitution.
6. aj
July 2, 2007
11:56 PM
Hi thks for the replies..
So Ken your saying for the elect God’s wrath was emptied out at the cross, but for the elect only ?
aj
7. Jon
July 3, 2007
7:16 AM
As I walked this morning, I was meditating on Psalm 90:11,12. “Who understands the power of Your anger and Your fury, according to the fear that is due You?”
It is impossible to use hyperbole when describing God’s wrath toward sin. It is infinite. It is an attribute of God. I asked myself “did Jesus understand the fury of God’s anger toward sin”. The answer is He understood it, because he experienced it, to its fullness. The cup of wrath was emptied on Him. Jesus experienced it in a way that the non-elect will not. The non-elect will experience the wrath of God in measured increments over an eternity.
To deny the doctrine of penal substitution is to deny the gospel of Christ and to deny the salvation that is through Christ.
8. aj
July 3, 2007
10:12 AM
Hi ive been thinking about your answers,plus reading some info..
It strikes me your saying there is an elect,saved from Gods wrath due to the cross,but for the others the unelect it still remains..
In fact they were “elected” not to be elected so to speak..
This leave me pondering how can God rightly be called Father,when He designates some for wrath,without a escape plan??
I’m not a fan of open theism,i believe God knows the future,but agree when my friend argue’s that in heaven there is no time only NOW..
That God knows everything at the same time, ie He knows i’m writing this at the same time Adam sinned..I cant explain it well, but i believe the answers about free will are shrouded in my friends idea ..
thks for ur time though.
andy
9. andy
July 3, 2007
10:17 AM
that should read
That God knows everything at the same time, ie He knows i’m writing this at the same time Adam sinned..I cant explain it well, but i believe the answers about ELECT/ free will are shrouded in my friends idea ..
10. Ken
July 3, 2007
12:57 PM
God is the Creator of all but the Father only of his people. The idea of the universal Fatherhood of God comes from (theological) liberalism.
What I’m saying above is that Arminian soteriology cannot accommodate penal substitution; the governmental theory of the atonement is more suitable to that perspective. In his systematic theology book, Robert Reymond quotes at length an Arminian commentator who makes that exact point.
If you want to posit a universal atonement, you have to give up penal substitution.
11. Ken
July 3, 2007
12:58 PM
Unless, of course, you’re willing to affirm universalism as a whole.
12. andy
July 3, 2007
2:03 PM
Tks for ur reply Ken!! wowee all this stuff is complicated, considering a man once “said consider the birds” nice and simple !!
i’m not dumb enough to think i can hold my own with you,so are agree to disagree…I have ordered Roger Olson book to clarify some things for me…
As a side note here in Southampton UK Steve Chalke is in the news,hes just won the bid to run some schools..Its not only penal substitution hes shaky on..When question about creation being taught in the school, he commented in the Guardian paper and else where :
“Creationism is a load of garbage,” Chalke declares. “Genesis is a poem based on a Babylonian creation myth”
“My personal belief is that those who wish to read into Genesis chapter 1 that God made the world in six days are not being honest and scholarly. It won’t be taught in the school because I think it’s rubbish. It’s a bizarre thing to claim the Bible suggests that”
13. John Brannon
July 3, 2007
3:50 PM
I’ve been reading and thinking on the above questions and answers about the penal substitution of Christ and have a few thoughts to add. Reading this blog, and so many others like it, as well as writing on websites and reading various responses to my articles, it always amazes me that one must be either a Calvinist, or an Arminian, and never the twane shall meet. Let me first say that I consider myself neither, nor do I consider myself an Amyraldian, whereby I hold to four points and not the fifth (limited atonement).
That stated, I see no problem with holding to both the view of substitutionary atonement and the universal atonement viewpoint, all the while maintaining that salvation is by faith alone, by grace alone, through the work of Christ alone. This because of a basic understanding of what it means for something to be a gift. You see, the Bible teaches very plainly that Christ died for all men (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4, I John 2:2, 2 Pet. 2:2, John 3:14-21, and so forth). The Bible also teaches very plainly that many will not inherit eternal life as a result of their rejection of Christ. Here’s where it all comes together.
The eternal punishment for each person’s sin must be paid. Christ’s death on the cross is offered to all; that is, it is sufficient for all. But it will only be effective for those who accept God’s free gift. Thus, when one dies, the Father will look upon us and if he sees Christ’s covering, He will recognize that our punishment has already been dealt out; if he sees us without the blood of Christ, our lives will demand eternal punishment.
Calvinism and Universalism get very similar on this point. They both agree with the following: If God loves you, you will be saved. Then they seperate, Calvinists argue (and correctly I might add), that not all will be saved, and therefore God does not love everyone (A implies B, not B, therefore not A). Universalists argue that God loves everyone, so all will be saved (A implies B, A, therefore B). Both are logically valid arguments, but neither one is sound because the first premise is wrong. It is not the case that if God loves you (or in atonement terms, if Christ died for you) then you will be saved. God’s love is such that it neither demands salvation for whom it is given (Calvinism), nor does it force itself on those who do not want it (Universalism, and in some sense Calvinism when you get into the issue regeneration preceeding belief). Even mere mortals can understand this; that when you love someone with [as close as is humanly possible to] a perfect love, you put yourself out there and allow the other person to make the choice. Why that is so difficult for us to understand, I do not know.
Ultimately, Christ’s death is offered to all. While Calvinists tend to argue at this point that this proves Christ’s death was wasted on those who do not believe, or not sufficient to secure salvation, I offer this: when Christ (who has existed from eternity, whose nature as God is infinite) died, the atonement offered had to be infinite. An infinite can never be traversed (so it is never exhausted), nor can it be too much and thus wasted (since infinitude is not an amount, it is of a different order altogether). Thus, I conclude, sufficient for all, effective for those who accept the payment for their sin.
I’m very interested to read comments, questions, and replies to this posting. Thanks guys.
14. John Brannon
July 3, 2007
3:53 PM
Sorry, should have clarified a bit better. I am not saying (in the first paragraph) that I hold to four points of Calvinism, I actually hold to none of them as such. Thanks.
15. vynette
July 3, 2007
3:59 PM
I think it is vital to make a distinction between ‘corporate’ and ‘individual’ atonement.
An overarching motif of scripture is that God is seen as regarding all the “children of Israel,” both living and dead, as a single, immortal individual.
The New Testament, especially Matthew, presents Jesus as this ‘corporate’ Israelite. Whereas under the Old Covenant, the High Priest once a year atoned for the sins of all Israel by offering the blood of animals in the Holy Place, under the New Covenant, the new High Priest atoned once only for the sins of all Israel by the offering of his own blood.
Atonement was acceptable to God only in this ‘corporate’ sense as the concept of one individual atoning for the sin of another is foreign to the Old Testament:
“But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30).
“No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).
“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto YHVH; peradventure I shall make atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto YHVH, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin, and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And YHVH said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” (Exodus 32:30-33) On this occasion, Moses’ request to make a corporate atonement was denied.
Besides the concept being foreign to the Old scriptures, which Jesus said could not be broken, making atonement for individuals does not apply under the New Covenant either for two reasons:
(1) Those who choose to follow the righteousness of Jesus have become children of the Most High, ‘begotten’ of God and cannot sin, hence no atonement necessary;
(2) Jesus warned that an individual is responsible for his own sin and has no excuse for that sin. Therefore Jesus had no thought of atoning for any individual’s sin.
“If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22)
16. aj
July 3, 2007
4:25 PM
John said
Even mere mortals can understand this; that when you love someone with [as close as is humanly possible to] a perfect love, you put yourself out there and allow the other person to make the choice. Why that is so difficult for us to understand, I do not know.
——————————————————————
Its difficult to understand because when i love someone,i don’t slap them when they don’t love me back !!! my love is unconditional God’s isn’t , Hes expect something back or be judged
17. Matt
July 3, 2007
8:00 PM
AJ, sounds like you’re working through a lot of the things I’ve been working through lately. My own thoughts are very similar to those of John Brannon’s.
Maybe following this discussion may be useful for you:
http://www.randybrandt.net/contend/rants.php?id=rFalwell
(if that link’s cut off, the last word is Fallwell)
Another helpful resource may be Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler.
18. aj
July 3, 2007
9:37 PM
Hi Matt thks for the link!! A lot of people i admire are from a reform background M L Jone,Piper,MacArthur to name a few..
But it’s very hard to make sense of all the conflicting arguments,for instance look at this quote i read today by Rob Bell.
((((( I don’t know why as a Christian you would have to make such declarative statements. Like your friend, does he want there to be a literal hell? I am a bit skeptical of somebody who argues that passionately for a literal hell, why would you be on that side? Like if you are going to pick causes, if you’re literally going to say these are the lines in the sand, I’ve got to know that people are going to burn forever, this is one of the things that you drive your stake in the ground on. I don’t understand that.))))))
You have all these different sides arguing different standpoints from reform to emergent, and they’re all Christian, it’s very confusing..
19. Ken
July 3, 2007
10:53 PM
Matt: Sorry, I can’t concur with your recommendation of Dr. Geisler’s book. It’s poorly researched and written. He’s refused to correct errors that have been pointed out to him. James White completely refuted his arguments and showed how his depiction of “moderate Calvinism” is ahistorical. White also ran exegetical rings around Geisler. It has the merit of being a bit better than Hunt’s What Love Is This? but that’s damning with faint praise.
Dr. Geisler has done wonderful things for the cause of Christ. His Christian Apologetics is a treasure. But Chosen But Free is a blot on a great career.
20. Matt
July 4, 2007
9:20 AM
Ken
I know that not all are happy with Dr. Geisler’s book. I have not yet read White’s “The Potter’s Freedom”, so I cannot comment on it. I will say this, though. I am a huge fan of Geisler and what he has done for Christ in his career (apologetics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, a plethora of books, and his work against open theism while he was still in ETS), but I have the 2nd edition of Chosen But Free, which includes a response to The Potter’s Freedom. While I generally was appreciative of the middle ground Geisler tried to reach in the book, I found his response to TPF to be less than impressive. It didn’t actually interact with any of the content of TPF, but simply charged James White with committing logical fallacies. Like I say, I haven’t yet read White’s book, so I can’t comment any further than that.
AJ
I would be extremely cautious about listening too closely to Rob Bell or any of the rest in the Emerging crowd. In fact, I would strongly encourage you to not drink from that stream at all. The Emerging Church Movement is a new innovation that attempts to fit Christianity within the bounds of postmodernism. It is a dangerous, heterodox experiment that will not last long, but which may derail many sincere people.
You will notice that while evangelicals can have a legitimate discussion about what Scripture teaches about God’s sovereignty and human will/responsibility, postmoderns (ie - Emergent) don’t even share the same basic assumptions that make a conversation about something like this possible. One of the main things that separates evangelicals from the emergent crowd is that evangelicals believe that we can truly know things which God has revealed to us. We cannot know the nature of God perfectly or exhaustively , so we must retain a large measure of humility, however, we must respect God enough to take Him at His word. Emergents hold to the underlying assumption that people are so caught up in their cultural and linguistic backgrounds that they cannot know things to be objectively or universally true. That includes things that God tells us about Himself in Scripture. That is why Rob Bell can spew the kind of drivel that you quoted above - because he can’t know anything about anything with any kind of confidence. Of course, they’re inconsistent here, because they act as though they know at least one thing with absolute perfect certainty - certainty is bad (?!), and doubt is good.
AJ, just keep this in mind - there are only two ways to be certain about anything. Either, we can perfectly know every fact in the universe, and then be confident that there are no unknown facts which may alter our certainty about things. Or, since this is impossible, we can trust someone who does know all things perfectly (God) and take Him at His word when He tells us things. Our level of certainty about anything is directly proportional to the clarity and force with which God speaks to that issue in Scripture.
21. JB
July 4, 2007
7:52 PM
Ken and Matt,
I’m sorry to say that you are mistaken with regard to the research that went into Chosen But Free. The problem that most people have when criticizing it (thought I don’t know of your particular reason) is that it is a largely philosophical book; and quite frankly it goes over many people’s heads. It is based on a Classical understanding of what it means for God to be eternal. Once that is established, the rest falls right into place. If you read his systematic theology volumes, you’ll realize that accusing him of not being researched enough is folly. Though I disagree with Dr. Geisler on many things, I would never make that mistake. I’ve read the Potter’s freedom as well, and found that it was very poorly researched, and that it largely based on logical fallacies. Matt, you seem to think that this is not important, but it is the whole ball game. White builds up straw men arguments for what Dr. Geisler says, and then tears them down. Anyone can do that. He never deals with the substance as it is actually presented, but instead continues to refer to Dr. Geisler as (oh the dread) an Arminian; which he is not. Dr. Geisler is as Calvinistic as anyone when it comes to the sovereignty of God, God’s election, Predestination, and the whole gammet (as am I). But he doesn’t seek to destroy or not deal with those parts of Scripture that bring forth the freedom of man as well. It’s a Thomistic understanding (Aquinas) of God’s election and man’s freedom, and when you get that, Chosen But Free makes perfect sense.
22. Ken
July 4, 2007
8:20 PM
JB: If, as you say, Chosen but Free “is a largely philosophical book,” therein lies much of the problem. Whenever we attempt to read the Scriptures through a philosophical grid we run great eisegetical risks. We end up misinterpreting the texts in order to fit our philosophical and theological traditions. It is quite telling that Dr. Geisler does very little exegesis of the pertinent Scripture passages; even in the second edition’s appendiceal response to White’s book the concentration is chiefly on alleged errors and logical fallicies rather than any attempt to actually deal with what the Bible says.
Perhaps Chosen but Free makes sense when read with the Thomistic understanding you recommend. Too bad that has so little to do with what the inspired authors of Scripture communicated.
BTW, I reiterate my great respect for Dr. Geisler as a philosopher and apologist. I never said his other works were poorly researched—just this one. It does not play to his strengths. The man is not an exegete. He bungled badly in writing this book. It should be withdrawn.
He (and by extension you if you agree with his position wholeheartedly) is not a Calvinist in any sense recognizable by the historic meaning of the term. He agrees at every point with the Dutch Remonstrants except for his affirmation of eternal security, which they initially said was up for discussion and eventually abandoned.
23. ff
July 4, 2007
9:09 PM
I think the problem I have with the doctrine of penal substitution is how arbitrary it seems.
Suppose I’m the loving father of a 16 year old boy. Suppose I’ve told him he can’t have the car tonight but he sneaks out with it anyways and runs it into a ditch. No one is hurt, damage to the car is minimal. I would be angry with him, no doubt. But suppose he was wonderfully repentant; he sees how foolish he’s been, promises to never do it again, apologizes for the hurt and fright he has afforded me and begs my mercy.
What does he deserve? I don’t know where you’re from, whether you’ll say “grounding,” “witheld allowance,” “a beating.” Lets choose “a beating,” because it fits best with the analogy.
What would mercy be in this case? To waive the punishment, hug my son, and express gladness that he wasn’t hurt and that he behaved maturely after the fact.
Now on what sort of crazy planet would I say: “Son, I forgive you, but being a just man I can not do away with your punishment just like that. Therefore, when we get home I will take myself behind the shed and give myself the strap!”
Perhaps I’ve beaten the point to death, but it raises the question about crucifixion: “why is God unable to show Man mercy without nailing Jesus to a cross?” You may say that it is because God is “just.” But then is the father in my example “unjust,” for not beating himself later on that night?
Furthermore, God defines justice. Justice can be anything he wants it to be: it can be not eating milk and meat in a single sitting or it can be not touching your wife during her period. Why would God write the terms of justice in such a way that his Son would have to bear the brunt of his wrath. Couldn’t he have just as easily have said “personal repentance pays the price of sin?”
Thanks,
ff
24. Matt
July 5, 2007
8:58 AM
No, He couldn’t have said “personal repentance pays the price of sin” because that is against His nature. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. If no penalty was paid for any sin other than repentance, then God would not be Holy. What kind of a God allows sin to go unpunished? Think of it this way - God is a unity. That means that He will never suspend one part of His being in order to demonstrate another. Don’t think of mercy as a suspension of justice. It isn’t. What God does He does with all of His being. If he could suspend one of His attributes, then He would in fact cease to be God for a time, and that is impossible. At the cross, we see both justice and mercy simultaneously. Mercy for those who believe, and justice for the sins they’ve committed. FF, I don’t know if you actually are a dad, but let me give you another scenario. Let’s say you have a 3 year old little girl who gets kidnapped, abused, and murdered. Is God just going to eternally suspend righteousness and justice, and wink upon this grossly unjust and evil act, simply because the criminal repented? Of course God will forgive him if he repents, but where is the justice in laughing it off completely? The penalty has to be paid by someone. Thankfully, in God’s graciousness, He allowed that penalty to be put on Himself rather than on you or me.
Ken
Just to be clear, I liked Geisler’s book, and thought that it was sound philosophically, and more important, it was solid from an exegetical standpoint. He goes through text after text after text to give clarification and understanding. The only think I was trying to say is that even though I haven’t read TPF, I thought Geisler’s response to White could have been better and more thorough. For all I know, White did commit all the logical fallacies he’s accused of, I haven’t read the book. My only point was that the response wasn’t as impressive as the book itself was.
25. Joop
July 5, 2007
9:55 AM
Interesting discussion.
Maybe this text can also be helpful for you:
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mat 20:28)
So a price had to be paid. And Matt (#24) is correct in saying that without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
To whom was this ‘ransom’ paid?
Any comments?
God bless,
Joop
26. Ken
July 5, 2007
10:01 AM
Matt: I submit that you owe it to yourself to read The Potter’s Freedom carefully, keeping your copy of Chosen But Free at your side for ready reference. See who does a better job exegeting the relevant texts.
27. Ken
July 5, 2007
10:05 AM
Joop: Some in the early church believed the ransom was paid to Satan. A more biblical view holds that the ransom was paid to God himself.
28. Matt
July 5, 2007
11:44 AM
Ken, shall do (#26). I actually have a copy on order from last week!
Joop, I have to agree with Ken here (#27). I’ve heard some people say that the ransom was paid to Satan, but that doesn’t make sense as it implies that Satan has power over God. It would say that Satan is so powerful that he can force God to make concessions to him in order to receive something in return (people’s souls).
29. dovesandserpents
July 5, 2007
6:17 PM
Having bought ‘Pierced for our transgressions’ my impression is that though it may be a reasonable book on the penal substution theory of the atonement it is not a book that will do anything to answer those who think that this theory is ‘divine child abuse’. A chance has been missed, hopefully someone else will take up that task.
The problem is this. If the message heard is that God the Father punishes God the Son for our sins then the phrase ‘divine child abuse’ strikes a chord. It sounds as if an angry father is wielding the knife (or gibbet) over his son. Sadly many sermons on penal sibstitution give this impression. The truth of course is that God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit were angry with sin. When Jesus offered propritiation he was propritiating Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He was propritiating himself. Furthermore, the Gospel narratives make it clear that Jesus himself while on earth saw the sin of the world, indeed the sin of Israel, and was justly angry with it, including the sins of pharisees and priests and the open wound that was the Temple turned into a den of theives. Jesus then dies of his own will as the only possible solution. The development of such themes can rescue substitutionary atonement from any ‘child abuse’ connotations and flesh out the doctrine further into the bargain. The other element missing, or barely mentioned in much preaching today is that Jesus was victim and priest at the cross, his priestly function barely gets mention in much preaching today. Yet a sacrifice must be offered by a priest. Once again this gives the ‘child abuse’ charge creedance, as without the priest being clearly identified the impression is often that God the Father is the God/Priest demanding his sacrifice. Whereas actually God in all three persons is being propritiated by Jesus the sacrifice/priest.
I wait for a book that takes up such themes as its main themes.
30. Ken
July 6, 2007
8:28 PM
Dovesandserpents: Here’s a portion of a Packer article that speaks to your concern.
“It is impossible to focus the atonement properly until the biblical mode of Trinitarian and incarnational thought about Jesus Christ is embraced. The Trinitarian principle is that the three distinct persons within the divine unity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, always work inseparably together, as in creation, so in providence and in every aspect of the work of redemption. The incarnational principle is that when the Son took to himself all the powers and capacities for experience that belong to human nature, and began to live through his human body, mind and identity, his sense of being the Father’s Son was unaffected, and he knew and did his Father’s will, aided by the Spirit, at all times. It was with his own will and his own love mirroring the Father’s, therefore, that he took the place of human sinners exposed to divine judgment and laid down his life as a sacrifice for them, entering fully into the state and experience of death that was due to them. Then he rose from death to reign by the Father’s appointment in the kingdom of God. From his throne he sent the Spirit to induce faith in himself and in the saving work he had done, to communicate forgiveness and pardon, justification and adoption, to the penitent, and to unite all believers to himself to share his risen life in foretaste of the full life of heaven that is to come. Since all this was planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father’s central purpose in it all was and is to glorify and exalt the Son as Saviour and Head of a new humanity, smartypants notions like ‘divine child abuse’, as a comment on the cross, are supremely silly, and as irrelevant and wrong as they could possibly be.”
31. aj
July 13, 2007
1:38 PM
Matt thks for ur reply..
I didn’t mention Rob Bell because i’m interested in the emergent church,but because i’m disillusioned by all the different voices,all saying different things (Bell was just a good example)..He truly believes what he says and so do you etc etc etc
I’m starting to feel maybe were all deluded..
anyhow thks for the reply