The bland shorthand coupling, “death and resurrection” (not actually found in the New Testament), subtly underplays the uniform Biblical emphasis on Christ’s resurrection from the dead (not his crucifixion) as the authentic, true, and vibrant centerpiece of the Gospel.

The common theological use of the juxtaposed terms “death and resurrection” of Christ should raise questions in our minds. Scripture prefers the locution “resurrection from the dead,” thus giving the priority to resurrection and emphasizing not so much the death itself as Christ’s escape from the realm of the dead. This clear note of triumph and victory over the grave is unsettlingly subdued in the rather bland apposition of the words “death and resurrection.” (It is most unfortunate that Gustav Aulen’s masterpiece, Christus Victor: A Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement [SPCK, 1931], is marred by his consistent appeal to this ‘tandemizing’ of the two distinct epicenters of the apostolic proclamation, thus numbingly slurring over their crucial non-symmetric relationship. This pairing is now virtually a universal commonplace in evangelical theology.) This shorthand expression arguably suffers from the side-effects of the theologies of Anselm and the Protestant Reformers in which Christ’s resurrection appears as more of an afterthought than an integral necessity for justification and atonement, as in the New Testament. Once we get this subtle loss rectified, we should instinctively return to the more common apostolic usages, “risen/raised from the dead” and “resurrection from the dead.” [9/18/11; 1/2/25; 8/15/25]

God never demanded a ransom from human beings on account of their sins. For Heaven’s sake, HE GAVE A RANSOM: HIS ONLY-BORN AND BELOVED AND WELL-PLEASING SON, whose viciously wrongful death deprived him of the throne of Israel SO THAT GOD HIMSELF WAS JUSTIFIED TO INTERVENE AND SAVE HIM BY SUPER-COMPENSATING JUSTICE AND AWARD HIM AUTHORITY OVER ALL NATIONS, ALONG WITH ALL THE COSMIC TRIMMINGS! [9/19/11]

In the deepest sense, Peter Abelard was right: Anselm should have focused on God’s love in the work of Atonement, but he instead elaborated on God getting His justice satisfied. Calvin erred yet further by urging that God’s penal justice get satisfied. However, by focusing on God’s premial justice instead of the satisfaction of either civil or criminal law as means to justice, Abelard’s focus on love WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN AMPLY FULFILLED. Alas! So close, yet so far away. For not only did Anselm and Calvin veer from the norm, but so also did Abelard by not recognizing or identifying the manifestation of love via premial (rewarding, restorative) justice at Christ’s resurrection! This solution requires no substitution, because love is “satisfied” by a direct award to the Victim. [9/20/11]

Let’s grant for argument’s sake that Abelard’s critics are correct that his particular “theory” about the “exemplary” “moral” influence of Christ’s submission to crucifixion for the sake of sinners out of love for them may not have the wherewithal to actually accomplish all he claimed for it. But is that the case also for the Gospel understood as the supreme revelation of God’s premial justice, whereby He manifested not only His merciful love at the cross by not destroying His dear Son’s killers, but, much more, displayed His staggering capacity for restorative justice at Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement on high, followed by His outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Would it likewise be impossible for such an historic demonstration to lack the power to conciliate sinners?

Furthermore, again for the sake of argument, if Abelard can validly be accused of underestimating the corrupting force of “original sin” by imagining that the exemplary force of Christ’s crucifixion is sufficient to overcome its depravity, can this deficiency equally be alleged concerning such a demonstration understood as God’s gracious willingness to permit vicious sinners, ignorant of His deep love and true justice, to slay His precious and perfectly exemplary Son without any immediate retribution, and in combination with a certifiable resurrection from the dead to demonstrate additionally God’s ability to bring justice to their Victim so as to graciously exonerate them of their premeditated murder? Moreover, what if this double-barreled demonstration occurs in conjunction with an unprecedented, overwhelming bestowal of God’s own Wholesome Spirit of prophecy and healing power to back up those amazing deeds of mercy and utterly unexpected graciousness? What then?

WOULD ALL THAT BE UNEQUAL TO THE “TOTAL DEPRAVITY” OF HUMAN SINFULNESS, OR MUST WE ADDITIONALLY RESORT TO AN “IRRESISTIBLE GRACE” THAT COERCES THOSE THOUGHT TO BE “DEAD ‘IN’ SIN,” AFTER ELECTING A FEW OF THEM “UNCONDITIONALLY” BY A “SOVEREIGN DECREE”? Or can we finally shuck off all this superfluous gnostic soteriology and rely on the pure words and true testimony of Scripture alone on this topic?

Accordingly, it appears that Abelard’s “exemplary” atonement proffered a shrunken example—his demonstration was incomplete, yet no less a valid, even indispensable, demonstration, so far as it went. [9/20/11; 1/2/25]

Only a Premial Atonement Can Fully Embrace the Exemplary Factor

If God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, how could He simultaneously be pouring out His wrath on that one whom he was inside of?! The absurdity of this is palpable, but seems lost on party-line theologians. Why does this strange apposition never seem to surface in the mainline theological consciousness? To the diametric contrary, the Father and the Son could ONLY BE SUFFERING ABUSE FROM AN ENEMY’S WRATH AND FURY! SATAN WAS THE INFERNAL AGENT OF THE AGONY OF GOD—BOTH SON AND FATHER. Yet They conquered! [6/19/09]

The representative character of Christ’s atoning work, from the premial perspective fully includes and incorporates an exemplary element that supplies powerful impulses to Christian ethics. From the penal substitutionary perspective this is handily disallowed because it would compromise the exclusivity of Christ’s unique achievement. For Christ alone is alleged to suffer God’s wrath. But this means that Christ’s crucial sufferings have little exemplary force upon the lifestyle of Christians who foster that doctrine! Tragic loss! [6/20/09]

Satan’s shedding of the Savior’s blood in an initially grim but ultimately delightful irony caused its widespread coverage over the whole earth!  The Great Dragon himself had unleashed a hydra-headed opponent quite the equal of his own insidious proliferation!  The further bloodshed of every little-Christ (“Christian”) raised up (εγειρ–) a multitude more by the further spread of his cleansing, saving, liberating lifeblood!  The blood of these witnesses is the seed of the church—“30, 60, 100-fold”!  [6/22/09]

Romans chapter five teaches that as many as suffer death because of what only one man did—Adam—can enjoy life because of what only one Man did—Jesus Christ!  This means that “the extent of the Atonement” is exactly as great as the extent of the Sin it provides indemnity or coverage for!  That is because this overcompensating Life of Resurrection has a right to be deployed just as far as Death has spread!  [6/22/09]

The whole debate between Arminius and the high Calvinists was based on one small point and turned on it:  “How many sins did Christ pay for?”  They both agreed on a penal payment theory of substitutionary atonement, a variation of Anselm’s vicarious satisfaction theory.  This fateful alliance was the source of virtually all the inevitable historic wrangling, because it set up the conditions for the debate, and both sides were resolutely faithful to these erroneous terms.  Each side regarded that theory of penal substitution to be NON-NEGOTIABLE!  [6/22/09]

The explanation, reason, or rationale of the cross of Christ is his resurrection.  Christ’s crucifixion was the immediate cause of his resurrection, historically speaking, and precipitated this divine response of due justice.  The blood of Christ handily signifies the whole process, including the underlying actuation of divine, covenantal avenging (εκδικ–) justice (-δικ–), BUT IN A WHOLE NEW KEY!  [6/22/09]

If we believe God’s Proclamation about Jesus, His holy and just One, whom He justified by raising him from the dead, thereby making him both Lord and Messiah, it pleases Him both to impute that belief as uprightness and not impute our offenses to us, and simultaneously to impart His Holy Spirit to make us instantly holy and cleansed from our sins.  So we see a pair of operations, each with dual aspects, but both operations (justifying and sanctifying) as functioning in strict lockstep, both actuated by our faith, acquiescing in God’s explanation of power for our salvation (i.e., the word for the whole shot!).  [6/23/09]

To think of Christ on the cross as suffering uniquely the wrath of God (unlike us; in fact, “for the sake of” us) along with the usual wrath of Satan is DRASTICALLY INCOHERENT FROM AN EXEMPLARY STANDPOINT!  For in this confused construction they flow into each other indistinguishably and can only lead those who seek to follow Christ’s example into an emotional and ethical morass!  Then we are compelled to hesitate between two opinions regarding our own suffering of abuses:  “Is this thing from the Lord or the Devil?”  Doubts arise about our own integrity.  “Is this persecution from the Monster or punishment from the Master?”  It saps our devotion of stalwartness.  What sense does it make, then, to say that, “God was in Christ” there on the cross, strengthening him in his paramount extremity of Satan’s tempting him to “Show those bastards the sting of Your [Christ’s] wrath!” when, allegedly, it was God outside of Christ Who was simultaneously targeting His Own wrath on this, His legitimate Son?!  So is the Father modeling (for He surely is modeling something!) SADO-MASOCHISM?  How abysmally derogatory, not to say shockingly scandalous!  Not to add existentially incoherent!  [6/24/09; 3/08/17]

Avenging (εκδικ–) is an outbreak of justice.  Therefore, even though we habitually associate this most firmly with penal justice, it is by no means exclusively an avenging of wrongdoing; it may equally be a requital for rightdoing; that is, it may express premial justice.  And insofar as it is an outburst intended to set things right, nobody should be too surprised when, in order to set right the wrongdoing done so egregiously in wicked “requital” for the astonishing rightdoing of Jesus, God avenged this Victim by astoundingly rebounding him back to life with fresh proliferating force!  Now that’s real justice!  Such a blessed vengeance!  [6/25/09]

The Lord Jesus was in and under the graciousness of God while hanging on that cross PRECISELY BECAUSE HE SUBMITTED UNDER THE WRATH OF SATAN ON OUR BEHALF TO RANSOM US FROM THE REIGN OF TYRANNY THAT DEATH INAUGURATED.  And that is the reason he could never have tasted the wrath of God properly speaking!  The radical incoherence of penal substitution theory all comes crashing down to this little pile of flimsy gossamer under the slightest breeze of God’s super-compensating graciousness!  [6/28/09]