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]

God’s LOVE AT THE CROSS is linked necessarily to His show of JUSTICE AT THE RESURRECTION

Truly moving and captivating exposition and elaboration concerning the Cross of Christ AS A REVELATION OF THE LOVE OF GOD is scarcely possible on the foundation of the “PENAL SATISFACTION AND SUBSTITUTION” theory about the Atonement, for the latter not only sets itself consciously against the pejoratively so-called “MORAL INFLUENCE” approach, which has long championed some such alleged “theory,” but it necessarily abridges the varied possibilities for exploring it further by short-circuiting through a pseudo-trinitarian shunt that rationalizes God’s VENTING OF WRATH AGAINST CHRIST ON THE CROSS as “LOVE FOR THE SAKE OF SINNERS” who actually deserved it, whereas Jesus surely did not.  This SUBSTITUTIONARY PROSTHETIC ends up absorbing the brunt of disturbing inquests and doubts about the reality and scope of God’s love toward His sinful creatures.  But it is simply not up to the challenge.  It even stirs up more doubts and, worse, gets manipulated by sinful hearers as a pretext for “LOVING“ IN THE SAME WAY, i.e., FORGIVING ONLY WHEN A “DEBT” OF SIN HAS ALREADY BEEN “PAID.”  But to make forgiveness conditional on repayment, restitution, or reparation instead of on repentance (from which repayment, restitution, and reparations may gratefully flow as consequences and appropriate fruits) is to put the cart before the horse.  For God to credibly be able to direct us to forgive our brother from the heart for his offenses (and to make His own forgiveness of us dependent on our forgiveness of fellow sinners!), requires that THIS IS HIS OWN MODUS OPERANDI AND AUTHENTIC STANDARD OF CONDUCT, AS REVEALED AT THE CROSS.  It could hardly be otherwise.  Yet the Cross construed as a demonstration of substitutionary wrath in order to “SATISFY JUSTICE” and hence “indirectly” show us “love” is pathologically counter-intuitive and, worse, splices love uncomfortably with punitive justice with often very tenuous stitches–in any case a ragged makeshift unworthy of patching the troublesome breach of good sense.

However, this disappointing conclusion is not the last word on the puzzling history of Atonement doctrines regarding the relation of God’s love and justice. For God has obligated Himself NOT ONLY TO PUNISH RECALCITRANT EVILDOERS BUT TO REWARD WELL-DOERS… AS A MATTER OF SIMPLE JUSTICE! The theological hesitance or incapacity to contemplate anyone, EVEN THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF, as a WORTHY RECIPIENT OF SUCH PREMIAL JUSTICE goes very far indeed to account for the DESTABILIZED RELATIONS BETWEEN LOVE AND JUSTICE. Yet to re-open negotiations of those relations in this radiant light is to open the sluice gates of ancient Biblical truth and unleash a floodtide of refreshing insight to irrigate the parched landscape of atonement discourse and bring forth surprising new fruit–GOOD FRUIT–where, before, diverse noxious weeds proliferated to choke a more nourishing and bountiful crop.

Accordingly, when the Cross of Christ is looked upon as A REVELATION OF GOD’S FORBEARING TO PUNISH THOSE WHO PERPETRATED SUCH A DISMAL, NOT TO SAY HORRIFIC, EXHIBIT OF INJUSTICE, then we are on the right track to finally clear the weeds and cultivate much good fruit in consequence.  But to scan the whole picture, this stunning manifestation of God’s longsuffering at the Cross must be securely linked to the UNVEILING OF HIS PREMIAL OR REWARDING JUSTICE DIRECTLY TO JESUS IN RETURN FOR THIS VERY SAME VIRTUE OF FOREBEARANCE WHEREBY HE THERE REVEALED HIS FATHER’S OWN DISPOSITION TOWARD THE WORLD.  Christ’s reward, of course, started to become visible at his RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, which served to JUSTIFY HIS KIND AND HEROIC CONDUCT AT THE CROSS (INSTEAD OF INVOKING HIS MESSIANIC RIGHTS TO SUMMON LEGIONS OF ANGELS TO HIS DEFENSE).  This interpretation of God’s LOVE AT THE CROSS is obviously linked necessarily to His manifestation of JUSTICE at THE RESURRECTION and is ENTIRELY UNSULLIED BY ANY HINT OF A PUNITIVE IMPULSE, EITHER TOWARD THOSE MOST DESERVING OF OF IT, WHO CRUCIFIED THE LORD, OR TOWARD HIM WHO WAS MOST UNDESERVING OF ANY SUCH TREATMENT, VIA SOME SUBSTITUTIONARY RATIONALE, NAMELY, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

This approach to the high and holy events at the very core of the Proclamation of God’s Kingdom allows enormous scope to explore every angle of view on those climactic elements of our grand salvation IN TERMS OF GOD’S UNAMBIGUOUS AND UNEQUIVOCAL REVELATION OF LOVE.  Yet the results of this approach to the Atonement (and Justification, etc.!) can scarcely be covered by the rubric “MORAL INFLUENCE.”  Indeed, “FAITH INFLUENCE” would surely be more fitting because this was the INTENDED EFFECT as stated many times in apostolic Scripture.  John 20:31 is but one such declaration:  “THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF GOD, AND THAT BELIEVING, YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME.”  To call such an influence a “MORAL” one is to make a category error of momentous and ruinous consequence.  Much rather, this is a FIDUCIAL INFLUENCE, clear and simple.  [9/28/10]