Testing Tradition

Traditional protestant theology holds that the logic of the cross is that Jesus experienced something instead of His people .  In other words, He experienced something on the cross so that we don't have to.  He is substituted for His people on the cross. In what follows, I want to offer several passages to make the case that this actually is incorrect.  The logic of the cross is instead that Jesus experienced something that we might share in that experience with Him , both His experience of death and resurrection.  His people participate with Him on the cross. And these two are necessarily mutually exclusive.  The cross can't be both substitutionary and participatory because, by definition, substitution requires that the one being substituted for isn't participating.  When a class has a substitute teacher, that necessarily means that the regular teacher isn't participating in teaching the classroom that day.  If the regular teacher is there, then another teacher prese

Note: In the development of my thinking unpacked in this post, I am indebted to Andrew Rillera and what he has written in his superb book: Lamb of the Free , specifically the penultimate chapter (Chapter 7: When Jesus' Death Is Not a Sacrifice).  Before reading his book, the Greco-Roman understanding of hilasterion he discusses there had never been brought to my attention. [21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation (hilasterion) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show h

Note: This is the third of a three-part series. You can read part one here and part two here . Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. Romans 5:9 This verse in Paul's letter to the Romans is one that probably comes closest in the New Testament to explicitly substantiating the claim that the purpose of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was to rescue believers from the future wrath of God by Jesus taking it upon Himself as a substitute for sinners.  William Lane Craig, a proponent of this view—popularly known as the penal substitutionary view of the atonement—comments on this verse: For Paul Christ’s death is conceived to be both expiatory and propitiatory... The first clause expresses expiation (justified by his blood), the second propitiation (saved by him from the wrath of God). —Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ (p. 34). In this post, my aim is to show how Romans 5:9 does no

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage! Psalm 33:12 Have you ever seen this picture? The first time I saw it was as a painting hanging on a wall in one of the buildings where my kids go to school.  At the center of this image is an American flag, as a boat full of what we can probably safely presume to be American patriots are proudly waving their flag in the name of God.  And so Psalm 33:12 is identifying America as that nation whose God is Yahweh, the nation that God uniquely established.  As millions of students in classrooms throughout the United States have been taught to recite daily over the years (myself included), we are: one nation, under God . But does this application square with the context of Psalm 33 and, more widely, the rest of the Scriptural witness? My assertion is that it does not and simply cannot ultimately be about America, or any earthly nation for that matter. Let's look at the context of Psalm 33 first.

Note: This is the second of a two-part series.  You can read part one here . Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ Matthew 20:15 [28] So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. [29] For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [30] And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matthew 25:28–30 In part one of this series, I offered a non-traditional interpretation of the parable of the minas in Luke 19 by walking through the entire chapter in the wider context of the gospel according to Luke. In this second installment, I plan to demonstrate that the parallel account—the parable of the talents—in Matthew 25 should be interpreted through the same framework based on the context of the entire chapter and the wider context of the gospel

Note: This is the first of a two-part series.  You can read part two here . [24] And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ [25] And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ [26] ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’ Luke 19:24–27 I recently finished going through Luke's gospel afresh for advent this year.  And, upon this reading, the Holy Spirit was impressing on me the inescapable socioeconomic implications of the gospel as a thread that—more than any of the other three gospel accounts—Luke in particular highlights throughout the gospel account in his name. A few passages in Luke's text opened up to me like never before.  And what I'd like to do in this post is walk through Luke 19 in particular, offe