To allege ANY KIND OF JUSTICE from the Father AT THE CROSS results in blasphemous role confusion, which may be forgiven, however…

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]

“VICARIOUS” can only go so far…

Vicarious obedience, yes!

Vicarious sacrifice, yes!

Vicarious satisfaction, no!

Vicarious punishment, no!

Vicarious suffering, in a sense…

[10/21/06]

The cross of Messiah Jesus did not “render” God gracious; it afforded God the supreme, golden opportunity to RIGHTFULLY EXPAND THE EMBRACE OF THAT GRACIOUSNESS TO INCLUDE ALL NATIONS IN THE BLESSING OF ABRAHAM.  THAT’S A WHOLE ‘NOTHER KETTLE OF FISH…AND THEY ALL HAVE TO BE CLEANED!  THE DESTRUCTION OF JESUS’ JEWISH FLESH BY HIS JEWISH PEOPLE EFFECTUALLY “KILLED THE ENMITY” IN IT, WHICH HAD ESTRANGED ALL OTHER “NON-CHOSEN” PEOPLES, BUT NOW ALLOWED…EVEN INVITED THEM TO RUSH IN AND COLLECT THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE SPOILS OF THE RESURRECTED MASTER’S VICTORY OVER TEMPTATION, SIN, THE CORRUPT FLESH (WHICH HE SHARED WITH ADAM’S RACE), THE CURSES OF EVIL, DEATH, AND HENCE SATAN.  THE PORTION OF THOSE ABUNDANT SPOILS THAT WE CAN ENJOY EVEN NOW, BEFORE WE ACTUALLY INHERIT OUR ALLOTMENT IN KINGDOM COME WITH GLORIFIED BODIES, IS IN THE WHOLESOME SPIRIT, THE DOWN PAYMENT, PLEDGE, OR EARNEST OF THE PROMISED INHERITANCE.  AND IT IS THIS SPIRIT THAT IS THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT WHICH CLEANS THAT WHOLE FRESH KETTLE OF FISH THAT THE MESSIAH’S EXALTATION DRAWS INTO HIS FATHER’S KINGDOM AS WITH A NET.  [10/21/06]

PONDER THIS…

Was Jesus unrecognizable to the Emmaus road disciples (Luke 24:13-35) and, indeed, to the rest of his gathered disciples (Luke 24:36-53) because he was healed (although not yet glorified) beyond his “deformity” alluded to in the great Messianic passage of Isaiah 52:13-53:4? [4/19/06]

We could save ourselves a lot of trouble and grief by not trying to save ourselves from trouble and grief. [4/19/06]

If “God sacrificed His Son in order that the divine law should be upheld…despite mankind’s infinite offence,” as some theologians venture to allege (e.g., Sydney E. Ahlstrom, in the Introduction to the 1975 reprint edition of Horace Bushnell’s The Vicarious Sacrifice, Grounded in Principles of Universal Obligation, 1865), then how can Paul be so cavalier about the Law in 1 Timothy 1, Galatians 2-3, Romans 3-8, as well as Jesus’ one-upmanship in the “Sermon on the Mount” and his controversies with the Jews? One would have to distinguish Jesus’ honoring another “divine Law” than the one Moses had given and which the Jewish teachers were custodians of. Yet if this distinction is conceded, then Jesus must himself have been the revealer of that more “divine” Law. But why would he have to sacrifice himself to “uphold” it or honor it (unless to “uphold” it against the lesser authority of Moses…and his hypocritical custodians)? [4/19/06; 12/25/25]

Shalom is the state of affairs where all accounts have been squared—all outstanding debts paid up, all rightful obligations fulfilled, and ALL INJUSTICES OVERCOMPENSATED according to divine law and equity.

War is the diametric opposite of this, where wrongs are tragically overcompensated, instead, by devastation and desolation. War is hence an overreaction in the opposite direction from fruitfulness and joy. It is the incursion of wrath and correlative loss and destruction. [4/20/06]