How is that possible?

The righteous requirements of the Law have been met in him in order that the righteous requirements of the Law might be met fully in us. This declaration by Paul is breathtaking in its precise correspondence with the idea of recapitulation and its outcome. But there is more. We have emphasized that Paul’s gospel is not about human potential or human possibility but about the power of God. Here in Romans 8:4 is a clear illustration. Our own “recapitulation,” the new life in Christ, is only possible through the power of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 553 (emphasis original)

What about the scandal?

In the theology of the cross, the theme of recapitulation ranks high in value. However, there is one problem. Recapitulation alone cannot fully account for the nature of crucifixion. Compelling as Irenaeus’s account is, it does not incorporate and make sense of the factor of Christ’s gruesome death. This is the lacuna — the blank space begging to be filled — in much of what has been written in church history about the cross. The scandal, the hideousness, the obscenity, and above all the shame and dereliction inherent in the manner of Jesus’ death have been passed over in silence more often than not.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 549

But is it biblical?

The preachers and teachers of penal substitution forced the biblical tapestry of motifs into a narrowly defined, schematic, rationalistic — and highly individualistic — version of the substitution motif.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 488

Setting things right

If the ransom saying of Mark 10:45 is allowed full rein as a fluid, suggestive metaphor, rather than a rigidly schematic transaction, we are freed to see with the eyes of faith that somehow, on the cross, God himself is doing the paying. This is consistent with the point we are emphasizing throughout, that something is wrong and must be put right. The whole concept of redemption is another way of identifying God’s way of setting right what is wrong. This is the meaning of Paul’s word “rectification” — dikaiosyne in New Testament Greek.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 296 (emphasis original)

About that little Greek word hilasterion

[I]t should now be generally agreed that any concept of hilasterion in the sense of placating, appeasing, deflecting the anger of, or satisfying the wrath of, is inadmissible.

The more important, and truly radical, reason for firmly rejecting this understanding of propitiation is that it envisions God as the object, whereas in the Scriptures, God is the acting subject. This is especially noticeable in Romans 3, the context for Paul’s single use of hilasterion.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 280 (emphasis original)

Etymology matters sometimes

The word “atonement” can be traced back to 1526, when the English writer William Tyndale (ca. 1494-1536) was confronted with the task of translating the New Testament into English. There was, at that time, no English word which meant “reconciliation.” Tyndale thus had to invent such a word — “at-one-ment.” This word soon came to bear the meaning “the benefits which Jesus Christ brings to believers through his death upon the cross.” This unfamiliar word is rarely used in modern English, and has a distinctively old-fashioned feel to it. Rather than convey the impression that “Christian thought is totally out of date, theologians now generally prefer to speak of this area as “the doctrine of the work of Christ.”—Alister McGrath, Theology: The Basics (2nd ed.), 87

Ransom? The whom is it paid?

The New Testament nowhere suggests that Jesus’ death was the price paid to someone (such as the devil) to achieve our liberation. Some patristic writers, however, assumed that they could press this analogy to its limits, and declared that God had delivered us from the power of the devil by offering him Jesus as the price of our liberation.

Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254), perhaps the most speculative of early patristic writers, was one such writer. If Christ’s death was a ransom, Origen argued, it must have been paid to someone. But to whom? It could not have been paid to God, in that God was not holding sinners to ransom. Therefore, it had to be paid to the devil.—Alister McGrath, Theology: The Basics (2nd ed.), 84

Early theories of atonement (hint: there weren't any)

It is interesting that the Christian doctrine that Christ atoned for human sin through his death and resurrection did not, unlike such doctrines as the incarnation and the Trinity, become the subject of controversy in the early church, and therefore never was explained or spelled out in the early, ecumenical creeds. The New Testament itself, in describing Christ’s atonement, employs a number of different images or metaphors. Christ’s death is variously described as a sacrifice, a punishment that Christ bore on behalf of humans, and as a “ransom for many.” Early Christian thinkers mainly relied on the last of these images, seeing Christ’s death as a ransom paid by God that liberated humans from the power of sin, death, and Satan.—Evans, A History of Western Philosophy, 160–61

Inerrancy, again!

I just ran across this post on inerrancy and Russell Moore’s book. Go ahead and read it. I'll wait.

Good. She definitely is no fan of inerrancy, is she? Neither am I, but after reading it I mused as follows:

But isn’t there a place for the authority of scripture without inerrancy? Is it all or nothing? I’ve never believed in inerrancy, but I believe in the authority of scripture as prima scriptura—but the science nerd in me loves the findings of science. Perhaps the problem isn’t inerrancy itself, but the sola scriptura that it entails (or maybe it's the other way around, sola scriptura demands inerrancy)? I’m reminded of a line in Corrie ten Boom’s The Hiding Place where she says her father loved the findings of science and would pray to the God who set the atoms dancing and other such things. For me the findings of science incite the same feeling. Sometimes just as much as a cool new insight into a Greek or Hebrew text in scripture that I read—and sometimes even more!

Because I believe in prima scripture, though, I hold to a traditional view of morality. But—and this is where most people go off the rails—I don't see God as an angry parent, just waiting to club you into submission, or worse yet, an even more omnipotent version of Zeus on the rampage with his lightning bolt. I don't, and never have, believed in the popular version of penal substitution—and I definitely have problems with the "official" theological version of it. If you have to peg me, I would be a Christus victor person, but as Scot McKnight says in his A Community Called Atonement, theories of atonement are like a golf bag full of clubs. You don't hit a drive with a putter! And remember, the church didn't really have a "theory of atonement" for its first thousand years or so! The emphasis was on the redeeming, wooing, self-emptying love of God for humanity.

Ok, I've moved far from the origin of this and am riffing on my favorite topic now, which is the love of God for humanity as displayed in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, followed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit so that we can live in communion with him, now and forever. (That's mouthful, isn't it?)

Thoughts?

By the way, I know I've linked to this video before, but I really like it because it sums up the problems with much Western theology. It's only nine minutes long, and it's probably one of the best uses you can put nine minutes to (what a rotten sentence grammatically!).

Wrath? Love? Which is it? (Brunner)

God’s wrath cannot be compared with God’s love; for God’s love is His nature, but His wrath is never, and in no sense, His nature. It is His relation to the sinner so long as the sinner does not believe. It is not an error about which man needs to be “enlightened”, it is not the product of a primitive “anthropomorphic” idea of God, but it is something real, which can only be removed by the real event of the death of Christ on the Cross, and by faith in Him. It is the reality in which sinful man lives, until through faith in the Cross of the Son of God he is actually led out of it. It has the same reality as the law, as the guilt and the curse of the law. It is as real as the Passion of Jesus. It is the effect of sin, that God must seem to the sinner to be angry, that he comes under the curse of the law. Sin creates a reality, which lies between the love of God and man, and man cannot remove this real obstacle; God alone can do this. This removal of the reality of wrath is the Atonement.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 297

Anselm's theory of atonement and its flaws (Brunner)

Anselm’s theory of “satisfaction” claims to be an adequate, completely sufficient expression, which does not need to be complemented by any other ideas—it does not even allow for them—whereas for the writers of the New Testament the variety of conceptions and expressions points to the fact that none of these expressions in themselves are regarded as sufficient, but that all, as figurative expressions, are intended to point to a fact which by its very nature can never be fully understood. Further, the rationalistic form of the proof, and the spirit of calculation, is contrary to the outlook of the Bible. Finally, and this is by far the most important point—the theory of Anselm is purely objective in character. Whereas Abelard lays all the emphasis upon the subjective reaction of man, Anselm’s theory does not mention man’s faith at all, whereas the New Testament always regards both the atoning event and faith as indissolubly united. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” “Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood . . . that He might Himself be just and the Justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.” In the New Testament reconciliation in Christ is “truth as encounter”—just as much as every other part of the Faith; with Anselm, on the contrary, it is rational objective truth, which can be understood. If we look at this question from the opposite end, from God’s standpoint, it means: that whereas in Anselm’s view God is the Object of the Atonement (or reconciliation)—it is God who is reconciled—this is certainly not the teaching of the New Testament. Here it is men who are reconciled, not God; God alone is the Reconciler, the One who makes peace, who restores man to communion with Himself.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 290 (emphasis original)

The necessity of the cross

In their different ways they [the theories of atonement ] all want to say two things: owing to Sin, man’s situation in relation to God is dangerous, sinister, and disastrous. But man cannot alter this situation. God alone can do this; and He has done it in Jesus Christ, through His death on the Cross. There is a kind of inevitable connexion between this Event, and that dangerous, disastrous human situation, a sense that “this had to happen”. If man is to be brought back into contact with God, if he is to be able to receive the salvation which God has provided for him, then the Cross of Jesus Christ “must” happen. It is the necessary condition for God’s reconciling work. It is only because the Cross “must be”, that what seems to be an unintelligible tragedy becomes a significant saving fact. The knowledge of such a necessity, of the feeling that “it could not be otherwise”, was identical with the knowledge that the death on the Cross was no accident, no thwarting of the divine plan of salvation, no frustration of the divine government of the world, but, on the contrary, was itself an integral part of the divine saving history. “Therefore Christ had to suffer—the whole liberating truth is based upon this “must”. 286 (emphasis original)

What is the gospel?

The Gospel: An Outline

Jesus the king

1. preexisted with the Father,
2. took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David,
3. died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4. was buried,
5. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
6. appeared to many,
7. is seated at the right hand of God as Lord, and
8. will come again as judge.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 74

<idle musing>
Straight out of 1 Cor 15. It's usually called the kerygma, a Greek word meaning announcement. Unfortunately, most people truncate the gospel to items 3 through 5, possibly including 6 as an afterthought. They totally neglect the other ones, which are what frame the gospel and make it Good News.
</idle musing>

Just a part, not the whole!

That Jesus died for our sins and, as a portion of that “our,” that he also died for my sins is truly part of the gospel—emphatically so!—but it is imperative to realize that it is only a small but vital portion of the gospel as properly understood, not the whole gospel. It is also critical to recognize that “faith” is not primarily aimed at trusting in the forgiveness-of—sins process. For Paul does not primarily call us to “faith” (“belief” or “trust”) in some sort of atonement system in order to be saved (although mental affirmation that Jesus died for our sins is necessary), but rather to “faith” (“allegiance”) unto Jesus as Lord. Abstracting this for—our-sins portion of the gospel from the full gospel and the larger narrative frameworks that control its meaning is risky, especially if over time this “Jesus died for our sins” portion is placed in a new, slightly different me—centered controlling narrative—as has happened in much of our contemporary Christian culture. For the wider narrative frameworks determine what “sins,” “my need for salvation,” and indeed what has traditionally been termed “faith” as it relates to the gospel might entail in the first place.—Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 39

Once more, round the web

Are you a teacher and had a bad week? I remember those—especially when I was teaching high school! Take a look at this post for some encouragement. He's right : )

Speaking of school, this article is spot on. Here's the opening gambit, and it should make you read the whole article:

The most damaging thing you learned in school wasn't something you learned in any specific class. It was learning to get good grades.

When I was in college, a particularly earnest philosophy grad student once told me that he never cared what grade he got in a class, only what he learned in it. This stuck in my mind because it was the only time I ever heard anyone say such a thing.

He's right. By the way, the title of the article is "The Lesson to Unlearn." And speaking of unlearning, maybe libraries need to unlearn charging fines. Take a look at this article. Summary: Less fines equals more use. Kind of like grace versus law : )

Shifting gears a bit, worried about fragmentation of society? Seems like everyone is today. I've run across a few articles this week along those lines. Here is this:

So, how should kingdom people in America respond to this social fragmentation. First, if any aspect of your essential well-being is anchored in the well-being of America, or any other nation, I’m afraid you’re going to be anxious, frustrated and disappointed. A wiser course of action would be to divest yourself of all hope in America and all other nations of the world, and instead anchor your well-being in the only King and Kingdom that you have reason to believe will last forever.

And Jim E. sent me this one this morning:

We Americans are locked in political combat and focused on President Trump, but there is a cancer gnawing at the nation that predates Trump and is larger than him. Suicides are at their highest rate since World War II; one child in seven is living with a parent suffering from substance abuse; a baby is born every 15 minutes after prenatal exposure to opioids; America is slipping as a great power.

We have deep structural problems that have been a half century in the making, under both political parties, and that are often transmitted from generation to generation. Only in America has life expectancy now fallen three years in a row, for the first time in a century, because of “deaths of despair.”

“The meaningfulness of the working-class life seems to have evaporated,” Angus Deaton, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, told us. “The economy just seems to have stopped delivering for these people.” Deaton and the economist Anne Case, who is also his wife, coined the term “deaths of despair” to describe the surge of mortality from alcohol, drugs and suicide.

And it goes on. Good stuff; do read it.

Here's an interesting repost from over 100 years ago. Small snippet of prophetic stuff:

Many of us believe that our nation has a peculiar mission to restore peace. Nothing is so likely to tamper with our judicial qualities, to undermine the confidence of other nations in our sincere friendship, and thus to frustrate that mission of peace, as the growth of these war interests. They will create an American “war party.” When the foreign market fails, they will turn to the home market, and we shall feel their influence in the demand for American militarism.

Anybody care to deny that's what's going on? I didn't think so—especially since 9/11/2001.

In even less encouraging news, the United Methodist Church has decided to acknowledge that they are anything but united (and haven't been since probably the mid-1970s). This article is probably the best summary of the situation I've read. Most other ones either don't grasp the depth and length of the problem, or ignore it to score culture war points. Sad; it was my denomination growing up and well into my late 30s.

How about some theology? Roger Olson takes on Greg Boyd and others who deny substitutionary atonement. I agree with Roger; you can't have full reconciliation without substitutionary atonement, but not the popularly defined version of penal substitution! A good book to read is Scot McKnight's A Community Called Atonement. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Concerned about the Middle East? Take a look at a guest post on Ron Sider's blog. Amen and amen.

Two final posts here. One on a professor taking a stand on transgender studies. The other, it appears that in France after generations of looking the other way about underage sexual exploitation, the women are speaking up. A well-known French author is being held accountable and the laws are being enforced and tightened. Interesting world we live in, isn't it?

What does it take?

Intercessory prayer in itself may not have atoning value (cf. Jer 15:1), if, however, the prayer is a reflection of God’s will and intention, it may. Thus, effective intercession is at its heart a prayer that seeks to be one with the will of God (cf. Isa 50:5, 53:10). In the case of the Isaianic servant, intercession is a complete turning to God, even to the point of self-sacrifice. To this kind of intercessory prayer God ascribes atoning power sufficient for the renewal of the covenant relationship.—Standing in the Breach, page 325

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in tandem

From a canonical perspective, both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 provide important hermeneutical keys for the church to understand the suffering, death, and vindication of Jesus Christ. While both Psalm 22 and Isaiah provide categories of the righteous suffering servant/king being vindicated and the nations coming into the sphere of God’s salvation (cf. Ps 22:27–28 [MT 28–29]), only Isaiah witnesses as to how an individual can become mediator and medium for God’s salvific purposes. In this sense Isaiah 53 is prophetic, not least because Isaiah 53 and the following two chapters contain powerful hyperbolic speeches that transcend Israel’s actual experience in Babylon. Thereby, the prophet’s message assumes an eschatological character that not only points to Jesus, but also beyond to its fulfillment at the consummation of time (Isa 54:11–13).—Standing in the Breach, page 322

What happened?

Isaiah 53 does not only testify to the prophet’s suffering, but it also provides the reason as to why God restores the covenant relationship with Israel. The righteous one, somehow vicariously takes on himself the sins of Israel (Isa 53:6), intercedes for them (Isa 53:12), and thereby makes many righteous (Isa 53:11). The main thrust of chap. 53 is that of the suffering and wounded healer that gives wholeness to the many.

When we look at the immediate literary context, we can note a clear shift of tone between chaps. 52 and 54. Before Isaiah 53, the prophet still talks of the people’s guilt. The exiles are drunken with the cup of judgment and are full of Yhwh’s wrath (Isa 51:17–20). The time of divine judgment and hopelessness, however, is coming to an end. It is time to wake up and to leave the Babylonian captivity behind (Isa 51:17, 52:1). There is an expectation that Yhwh is resolved to intervene in a dramatic act of redemption.

For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. . . . Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. (Isa 52:3–10)

The fourth poem is followed by chap. 54, a chapter that replaces the relationship of God and His prophet with the relationship between God and Israel. There is a dramatic shift of images. Israel who was portrayed as a barren, adulterous women who was left by her husband, is now called to rejoice.—Standing in the Breach, page 319

Active prayer

[V]erbal intercessory prayer and intercession in the sense of vicarious suffering and death are not exclusive categories but rather they are intrinsically connected in the ministry of the servant.

We should remember that one fundamental Old Testament concept that led to the formation of the substitutionary understanding as we find it in Isaiah 53, is prophetic intercessory prayer.—Standing in the Breach, page 316

About that atonement thing

Holy Week can produce some of the worst in theology sometimes, but it can also produce some of the best. Brian Zahnd's post is in the latter category. Here's a bit of it, but read the whole thing.

What the cross is not is a quid pro quo where God agrees to forgive upon receipt of his Son’s murder. What the cross is not is an economic transaction whereby God gains the capital to forgive. These legal and fiscal models for understanding the cross simply will not do.

Jesus does not save us from God, Jesus reveals God as savior. What is revealed on Good Friday is not a monstrous deity requiring a virgin to be thrown into a volcano or a firstborn son to be nailed to a tree. What is revealed on Good Friday is the depths of human depravity and the greater depths of God’s love.

And a bit further

The death of Jesus was a sacrifice. But it was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a sacrifice to appease an angry god. It was not God who required the sacrifice of Jesus, it was human civilization. A system built upon violent power cannot tolerate the presence of one who owes it nothing. The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary to convince us to quit producing sacrificial victims; it was not necessary to convince God to forgive. When Jesus prays for forgiveness on the cross he was not acting contrary to the nature of God, he was revealing the nature of God as forgiving love.

And yet further

The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Jesus in order to forgive, the crucifixion is what God in Christ endures as he forgives. The cross is where God absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness.

The crucifixion is not the ultimate attempt to change God’s mind about us — the cross is the ultimate attempt to change our mind about God. God is not like Caiaphas seeking a sacrifice. God is not like Pilate requiring an execution. God is like Jesus, absorbing sin and forgiving sinners.

<idle musing>
Yep. And while we're thinking about atonement, you might want to check out Michael Bird's post from the other day. Here's the conclusion, but read the whole thing.

However, if we were to pick one ring to rule them all, one model which is perhaps capable of linking together the others without relativizing them, then I’d probably say Christus Victor. I say that because the CV is the model which best unites Christology, kingdom, and soteriology together.

In want of a summarizing statement about what the cross achieved, we could say that the atonement is the climax of God’s project to put the world to right through the cross of Jesus. The cross brings God’s people into God’s place under God’s reign to share in God’s holy-loving-glory on account of the love that is demonstrated in the cross and the justice that is satisfied on the cross.

I couldn't put it better myself.
</idle musing>