To maintain, as some thoughtful theologians of the atonement do, that “the righteousness of God” refers to both the resurrection and the cross of Christ is actually to undermine the integrity of the Gospel story. Each epicenter has its own indispensable role to play in magnifying the character of God–Father and Son–and any double vision in this respect results in ROLE CONFUSION, and not only between Father and Son, but, what is much worse, BETWEEN THE FATHER AND SATAN! This is huge! To allege that any “righteousness,” i.e., justice, of God was manifested at the cross, even in tandem with an affirmation that it was revealed in the resurrection “too“, is TO SMUGGLE IN PENAL SATISFACTION, at the very high cost of polluting the purity of the Gospel message.
Among these otherwise worthy theologians are Clark Pinnock, Kevin Vanhoozer, Douglas A. Campbell, and Darren W. Snyder Belousek.
Atypically, because Campbell, for instance, is uncomfortable with the orthodox Protestant “Justification Theory” in its view of the cross, yet cannot come up with an alternative interpretation of Romans 3:25-26, he relegates what he supposes is its “vicarious-atoning-sacrifice” essence to “the Teacher” that the apostle Paul is allegedly opposing as a foil. Campbell herewith GIVES AWAY the baby with the bathwater. He simply does not see Paul’s authentic resurrectionary justice in the passage, so is alienated from one of the most powerful passages that elucidates it. If he only considered (much less, conceded) that the blood of Christ denotes the cleansing power of his resurrection from the dead, he would have been able to renegotiate this entire giveaway program of his. [5/12/10] As it is, his painfully elaborate exegetical exhibit is woefully off balance and out of kilter. It wobbles ominously and may sadly be destined to bring many of his solid gains into undeserved neglect. If so, this could, tragically, be monumental labor lost. [5/13/10]
The Premial Atonement 