Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007).
The book is divided into two major parts. In first part, the authors set out their case for this book and then in the second part, they critically and analytically respond to the critics of Penal Substitution. Why do they need to write this book in defense of Penal substitution? They are aware that Christian fundamental doctrines have been constantly attacked by others. But in this case, it is strange and disturbing because “some of the more recent critics of penal substitution regard themselves evangelicals, and claim to be committed to the authority of Scripture”(p.25). And they also recognize that this criticism is not just confined to academic books and journals, it has become popular in Christian books and magazines, which creates confusion and alarm among Christians. The most pressing reason for them to write this book is “that the misconceived criticisms of penal substitution show no sign of abating, and the resulting confusion within the Christian community seems to be increasing rather than decreasing” (31).
Therefore, before they refute against the claims of the critics, they first lay the biblical foundations of penal substitution; theological framework, the pastoral importance and historical pedigree of penal substitution. In so doing, the authors convincingly bring together in this particular book “a detailed examination of the key biblical passages, a consideration of the important theological and doctrinal issues, and a comprehensive survey of the teaching of the Christian church through the ages” (30). They comprehensively argue for that “God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punished and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin” (21). In arguing this concept, the authors exegete many biblical texts and the most fascinating thing is the way they laid out Old Testament passages, which we would normally think in other way, in support for penal substitution. For example, they present two distinct acts of salvation from Exodus 11-12; first, by means of the judgment of God there is a salvation from the tyranny of the Egyptians. Second, by means of the Passover sacrifice there is a salvation from the judgment of God. The tenth plague is distinct from the other nine: it is conditional in the sense the Israelites are not automatically spared from death. The “blood” of a lamb must be shed. So the lamb becomes a substitute for the firstborn son, dying in his place. Here the Israelites were to be delivered not from Pharaoh, but from the judgment of the Lord. This is what they call “unambiguous affirmation of penal substitution” (36).
And they persuasively incorporate all the biblical foundations on penal substitution into the big picture of theological framework such as doctrine of God: Trinity; creation, sin and redemption. For example, they argue that God is not composed of different ‘parts’ of attributes “as though he could be dismantled somehow into separate component. We cannot speak of God’s love as though it were a ‘part’ of God, separate from his holiness…(so) penal substitution preserves the truth that justice is firmly rooted in the character of God,” (138) in his Holiness.
The historical survey that shows how this doctrine has been present and preserved from Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) to the recent the Evangelical Alliance’s reaffirmation of this doctrine in 2006 clearly refutes against critics’ ‘late-development’ (specifically after reformation) theory of penal substitution. So they claim that “it is time to lay it to rest for good” (164).
In part two, the authors engage with “the work of recent critics” (206) especially Stuart Murray Williams, Joel B. Green and Baker’s Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, and the writings of Alan Mann and Steve Chalke, and forcefully yet thoughtfully answer all the critics’ claims. Critics have variety of claims that penal substitution is not taught in the Bible or it is not significant and some thought that this doctrine unfortunately becomes a source of division between believers (ch.7). After careful presentation of how the Bible clearly teaches about penal substitution, they conclude that it lies at the heart of the gospel. And there are “some issues on which division is both necessary and inevitable…(yet) it is possible (and desirable) for Christians to retain unity in the gospel if they differ on” issues such as church leadership or even speaking in tongues! Thus they boldly claim “if those who impugn penal substitution refuse to reconsider their position, there comes a time when we have no alternative but to part company” (217). This statement shows their commitment to the authority and testimony of the Bible.
In addition, they answer thoughtfully the Critics’ claims that this doctrine is the product of our culture (ch.8); it encourages the myth of redemptive violence, and as a result it turns out to be “cosmic child abuse!” (ch.9); it undermines God’s true forgiveness and thus it implies universal salvation (ch.10); it is contrary to the character of God (ch.11) and it has negative implications for the Christian practical life.
I agree with the authors that if we profess to be evangelicals we need to think seriously on whose work we heavily rely on when we criticize the penal substitution. It is clear that Chalke and Alan Mann rely heavily on the work of Walter Wink, who also criticizes penal substitution as an instance of ‘the myth of redemptive violence.’ Wink again in turn depends on the work of Rene Girard, whose “work is thoroughly unbiblical at key points” (236). Again since Wink claims surprisingly that the apostle Paul was “unable” to understand correctly the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death and that “Christianity has suffered from this confusion ever since,” (237-8) it indirectly suggests that he does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible. Thus, relying heavily on such a so-called “theologian” and criticize the biblical truth on penal substation, the Critics are self-contradicting to what they have professed in regard to their faith.
On the other hand, in the process of refuting against Critics’ claim of universalism, the authors vigorously and thoroughly defend the doctrine of particular redemption (pp.268-278), which might be disturbing to some. They are also aware this fact that the section “has become a rather lengthy defense of particular redemption in a book supposed to be about penal substitution!” (278). However, they defend themselves again that “in theology every piece of the jigsaw is ultimately connected to everything else” in order to avoid like the Critics who have put these pieces in the wrong place.
And it is also thrilling to see the authors’ label as “the vague objection” on the criticism deployed by some with a reputation for theological expertise. According to them, the objection is rather “a naked exercise of power” (326). To the objections of people such as Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, they label as “the emotional objection” deployed in “forceful langue in the absence of a reasoned argument, rather than as a climax to it” (326). In appendix of the book, the authors conclude the book with a warning about ill-thought illustrations in regard to penal substitution, such as illustrations which deny active and consenting involvement of the Father and the Son; which portrays conflict between God’s law and God’s will, and so on.
All things considered, this book is one of the most comprehensive treatments available of the doctrine of penal substitution with clear and understandable writing style for all. The authors have comprehensively argued that penal substitution is clearly taught in Scripture; it is a central Christian doctrine throughout history; and they have also showed serious pastoral consequences if we neglect this doctrine. And they have also answered comprehensively to the objections raised against it. As a matter of fact, we need to refute against those objections because we do not enjoy encountering with “other gospels,” and finally one day if those who criticize this biblical doctrine “would turn from them and embrace the glorious truth that our Lord Jesus Christ ‘bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness’ (1 Pet. 2:24)” (328), then we would surely be rejoice more.
No comments:
Post a Comment