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]

The issue in Isaiah 53:4-5 is not whether Christ was getting punished for his own sins or ours; rather, it was whether he was being punished at all, or instead undergoing strict discipline for an awesome life-and-death battle against Satan to win peace and healing for Israel and ultimately all humankind.

The righteousness, obedience, or faithfulness of the entire life and career of the Lord Jesus Christ was decisive for our salvation—including, most notably, our justification—yet not, as the Protestant Reformers theorized, because it was “imputed” to sinners (or even merely to “the elect”) when they believe, so as to become “their own” possession. Much rather, it was because of the EXTREME REWARD that it rendered Christ worthy of receiving, yet which he, in turn, gives away FOR FREE (hence the expression “free” grace) to all sinners who, under the hearing of this Explanation and Proclamation of extraordinary divine power, are thereby drawn back to God, submit in faith, and consequently receive the Holy Spirit as experiential pledge of the promised full inheritance to come.

It’s at this point that the proper role of imputation (logiz-) kicks in. It is precisely this faith, generated by the power of God’s proclaimed Explanation for the cross—namely, that without such a conclusive public execution any alleged subsequent resurrection would be placed in permanent doubt and regarded as a probable hoax—that God considers, regards, credits, counts, or imputes AS RIGHTEOUSNESS! And of course the ensuing coming of the Holy Spirit “finishes” the job by maturing us in actuality into conformity with the image of Christ (including assorted fruits of righteousness). [3/3/11; 3/18/24]

The dogma of “penal substitution” is disturbingly reminiscent of certain psychotropic drugs—notoriously, Prozac, Zoloft, and similar SSRI antidepressants.—it all too often produces severe, disinhibited, non-characteristic, bizarre, even violent, side-effects, plus disfiguring after-effects that too easily get misattributed to non-theological factors. Results of following the regimen are unpredictable in specific cases (“every body is different and responds uniquely,” “no two individuals react exactly the same,” etc.) and can be grossly out of character, and profoundly shocking. The punitive inferno of “penal satisfaction” is like a sleeping fire-breathing dragon or a slumbering volcano. It might even be said that this vaunted cure for human sinfulness is all too often worse than the illness of sin itself because, counterintuitively, it strangely exacerbates sin, making people mean, vengeful, unforgiving, conceited, arrogant, self-righteous, devious, hypocritical, exclusivistic…(“Please carefully read the enclosed drug warnings concerning known side-effects, adverse symptoms, etc.”). You get the idea. It’s like so many psychiatric drugs; they produce disfiguring tics, which do not always manifest until after withdrawal from the insidious substance (which simultaneously triggers, aggravates, and masks its own dreadful effects). Hence, the destabilized state of being “in withdrawal” from penal substitution may risk prompting any seething resentments to finally break surface unexpectedly with devastating consequences. [3/4/11; 3/23/24]

In commenting on Isaiah 53:4a, “Surely he hath born our infirmities and carries our sorrows…,” the Geneva Bible, note “f,” declares, “That is, the punishment due to our sins: for the which he hath both suffered and made satisfaction, Matt. 8:17, I Pet. 2:24 [emphases added].” On the contrary, neither scripture cited declares any such thing. Matthew explains its meaning with reference to Jesus’ expelling demons and healing the sick. And Peter expressly asserts that he bore “our sins” themselves, not any punishment for them. ‘Satisfaction‘ is nowhere in sight, nor even implied.

The Geneva notes proceed similarly in comment on the next phrase, 53:4b, “…yet we did judge him as ^gplagued, and smitten of God, and humbled.” “^gWe judged evil, thinking that he was punished for his own sins, and not for ours.” Yet nowhere is it written that he “was punished…for our sins,” and certainly not by God! Rather was he smitten by Satan, as Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 both make unambiguously clear at the outset and conclusion of Biblical Scripture, with no different doctrine sandwiched in between. The real issue in Isaiah’s text is not whether he was punished for his own sins or for ours (real answer: neither), but that he was undergoing necessary endurance training with the goal of achieving peace for us all after an ominous duel-to-the-death, winner-take-all engaging of a supremely daunting foe.

However, the Geneva Bible notes extend their error into the succeeding verse, 53:5, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was broken for our iniquities: the ^hchastisement of our peace [was] upon him, and with his stripes we are healed,” “^hHe was chastised for our reconciliation, I Cor. 15:3 [emphases added].” Yet that is hardly what this text teaches, much less the cited New Testament passage, especially not if punitive “chastisement” from God is intimated. Rather, Christ endured the Father’s discipline (LXX, paideia), without a hint of resentment or sin in response, nor of any wrath from God whatsoever.

Still, Geneva is not satisfied to cease and desist. In a culminating error it next asserts at 53:6, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid uopn him the ⁱiniquity of us all,” “ⁱMeaning, the punishment of our iniquity, and not the fault itself [emphases added].” Well that’s a comfort! Nay, but the diametric opposite is the case in actuality. This scripture, like its parallels and echoes elsewhere, speaks of (and seems to mean) precisely the “fault,” i.e., the seriously harmful, injurious felony that landed the just, holy, and innocent One on a tree, under a wickedly misplaced curse! [3/5/11; 3/23/24]

The BLOOD of the New Covenant simultaneously brings RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS–both instantaneously and progressively, by FAITH.

“For thus says the Lord, ‘There shall not be cut off a man of David’s line from sitting on the throne of the house of Israel.  As for the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off a man from before Me who offers up the ascent approach and fumes the approach present and offers sacrifices for all the days.”  (Jer. 33:17-18)

Now that Messiah has arrived in the person of Jesus, many Old Testament prophecies are changed in meaning, actually transformed before our eyes to reveal their true substance and New-Covenant import!

Jer. 33:18, for instance, now reveals God’s intention (although it was implicit in the provisions and promises of the first covenant, “which covenant [Israel] broke” Deut. 31:20, Jer. 11:9-10, 31:31-33, Heb. 8:8-10) for all His people, in light of Jer. 33:17, the immediately preceding verse, when the Wholesome Spirit opens our eyes to see Jesus in it!

Thus occurs a ‘transvaluation’ of prophecies that an unbelieving, stubborn people—“Israel according to the flesh”—could never apprehend.

O Father, continue to open our heavy eyes to see Jesus so that then we might also behold our true destiny before Your face!  Hallelujah!  [11/26/04]

The notion of ‘progressive sanctification’ is a residue of the penal substitution theory of the atonement that does not understand the blood of Jesus as actually, truly cleansing our hearts/consciences from misdeeds.  To be sure, it is not the literal blood that is applied to our hearts/consciences to effect this result but the agelong life of the innocent and perfectly just soul of Jesus (which is “in the blood”), the Lamb of God—it is this life, poured out from heaven into our believing hearts via the Wholesome Spirit, the promise of the Father in the New Covenant in Messiah’s justly innocent blood, which is the active ingredient which cleanses from misdeeds and dead works; see Acts 10:15-16, 44-47; 11:9-10, 15-17; 15:8-9; Heb. 9:13-14, 22-26; 10:2-4, 19-22; 13:20.   (See also the works of P. P. Waldenström concerning Reconciliation/Atonement—a single word in the Swedish language.)

In the penal substitution theory, the blood was presented to God to pacify or appease or placate or satisfy His wrath against sin so that He could ‘forensically’ justify the sinner who believes.  Yet the sinner is then understood to be a sinner still, except that, having been justified ‘in the blood‘ instantly upon faith in Christ because of what he accomplished ‘at/on the cross’ (i.e., his death on our behalf), the sinner is understood to be ‘sanctified‘ by a process throughout life thereafter.  Thus passages like Heb. 10:14 are thought to be teaching a lifelong ‘being sanctified’ rather than our “getting wholesome” instantaneously by our Chief Priest’s “one approach–present” by which he “has perfected to the finality” (Heb. 10:1-2, 12-14) those who are, one by one (an historical procession!) getting and remaining wholesome by this priestly ministration.

The penal substitution model of the Atonement as taught by the Protestant Reformers, made justification personally instantaneous but sanctification personally progressive.  However, Scripture, to the contrary, teaches that both justification (in the epistle of Romans) and sanctification (in Hebrews) are personally instantaneous upon faith, as witnessed by the receipt (‘signed and paid for’ by Christ himself in his own blood!) of the Holy Spirit “with signs and miracles following.”  This was the empirical proof to Peter (cf. Acts 10-11 and 15:8-9) of the nations having received both of these boons in one fell swoop, all at once.  We don’t get more and more wholesome before God any more than we get more and more upright.  We simply walk enduringly in the faith that keeps us in that state of rectitude and wholesomeness and forgiveness.  To be sure, our faith should ever grow and get more firmly rooted and established against all opposition.  But it is rooted exactly in the instantaneously and gratuitously given realities of righteousness and holiness/wholesomeness.

Both of these realities are founded alike in the blood of Jesus (i.e., his sinless soul given up to a public, violent, unjust death and raised from the dead by the justice of God to agelong life, thus justifying God in giving us His promised Spirit for free).  This is why both the New Testament and the early church teach that we are repeatedly to “eat the flesh” and “drink the blood” of the Lamb of God (the Passover) in the Lord’s Dinner.  For in this way we enjoy its agelong benefits continuously in this life, i.e., righteousness and wholesomeness.  [11/30/04; 10/3/25]

The penal substitution theory of the Protestant Reformers, ironically, retained the substance of the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) notion of progressive justification (which is equally false) under the rubric of ‘progressive sanctification.’  However, it is not a necessary ingredient to a full and entire comprehension of justification (a judicial metaphor) and sanctification (a priestly metaphor).

Having said that, it is still necessary to affirm that throughout our current earthly sojourn through this present vicious age of the world ‘with devils filled’, as we are remaining in Messiah’s explanations and declarations, keeping his directions, walking in the light of truth, we are participating or communing with the Father and the Son by Their Spirit, according to the distinctive promise of the Father in the New Covenant in the blood of His only-born Son, and thus partake of the divine nature, including righteousness and wholesomeness, in an increasing way as we stay in trust.  We are to become full of Spirit, letting Messiah’s Explanation dwell in us richly, completing wholesomeness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1) until love casts out fear when it has become perfect, so that our joy becomes full (1 John 4:18; John 15:9-11), etc., etc.

These are all progressive, to be sure,  But they are the fruit of a rectitude in the eyes of God that is imputed to us instantaneously and continuously as we keep trusting Jesus, and only so long as we endure in that faith, steady, rooted, grounded, founded, stable, steadfast.

However, no less is this true of wholesomeness.  For all the fruit of God’s Spirit of wholesomeness grows naturally (“if the firstfruit is wholesome, the kneading is also; and if the root is wholesome, the boughs are also” Rom. 11:16) in those who are called “wholesome [ones]/saints“ by a faith that causes the blood of the Wholesome One to get applied to their hearts, thus cleansing away their misdoings.

In both of these procedures, God wants to glorify our simple trust or faith in Him as manifested in doing what the Messiah, His Son, directed us.  And the reason is eminently plain:  keeping his directions (εντολ-) leads us, in the power of his Spirit of wholesomeness, along the path to maturity (-τελει-) of wholesomeness for agelong life.  The root, if we stay put, produces the fruit of uprightness and wholesomeness—the whole spectrum of virtues listed by Paul (Gal. 5:22-23), James (James 3:13, 17-18), and Peter (2 Peter 1:5-8).  Not surprisingly, each list explains them in terms of “fruit.”  Do we get this?  [12/1/04]