Whereas the imagery of propitiation is that of the temple court, the imagery of redemption is that of the market-place. The basic meaning of ‘to redeem’ is to buy or buy back, whether as a purchase or as a ransom. Strongly implied is the plight from which we needed to be ransomed.…
How can we, who are so deeply unholy and unrighteous, be reconciled with God, who is gloriously holy and righteous? How can God express simultaneously his holiness in judgment and his love in pardon?
The astonishing, yet scriptural, answer, is, in the words of Cranfield, that
…‘God, because in his mercy he willed to forgive sinful men, and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against his own very self in the person of his Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved.’
The notions of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘substitution’ in relation to atonement are often seen as crude and primitive. Indeed, the idea that God would need to be appeased by the cruel sacrifice of his Son is frequently thought to be inconsistent with the character and teaching of Jesus himself.
But, in fact, such ideas, carefully stated, lie at the heart of the church’s worship and witness. Cranmer, for example, at the beginning of his Prayer of Consecration in 1549 described Jesus as having made on the cross, by his ‘one oblation of himself once offered’, ‘a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world’.…
What can the brutal death of a single Jew, two thousand years ago, have to do with us finding peace with God? And why, if God wishes to forgive us, why does he not just do so, without all the paraphernalia of sacrifice?
As one sceptic put it: “Of course God will forgive me; that’s his job”.
It might further be objected that we are required by God himself to freely forgive one another. Why can’t God simply do the same with us?…
Various answers could be given to the question, and there would be truth in all of them.
We could, for example, say that Christ died because of the actions of the Roman soldiers and Pilate. The soldiers ‘crucified him’, Mt 27:32-35; Mk 15:21-25; Lk 23:26-33; Jn 19:17-18. And Pilate, the Roman governor, allowed them to do so even though he knew Jesus to be innocent.
We could also say that Christ died because of the actions of the Jewish people and their priests. …
‘It is often asserted,’ writes John Stott, ‘that in the book of Acts the apostles’ emphasis was on the resurrection rather than the death of Jesus, and that in any case they gave no doctrinal explanation of his death.’
I have heard this assertion myself, and so was interested in reading what Stott has to say about it (in The Cross of Christ, 32-35).
Not only is the death of Christ often mentioned in Acts, but the seeds of the doctrine later developed in the epistles are there too.…
Because it is:-
1. The measure of man’s guilt, Acts 3:13-15.
2. The manifestation of God’s love, Rom 5:6-8.
3. The means of salvation, Jn 3:14-15.
4. The mark of separation, Gal 6:14.
5. The motive of service, 2 Cor 5:14f.
6. The melody of heaven, Rev 5:8-10.
(Source unknown)…
Steve Chalke’s (and Alan Mann’s) book, The Lost Message of Jesus, is, I suppose, yesterday’s papers telling yesterday’s news. Published in 2003, it generated more heat than light, and polarised well-meaning people into opposing groups of fans and critics.
It’s all a bit late to be offering a review of the book. But I suspect that its central point (that ‘God is love’ is all that we really need to know about God, and everything else must be forced through this one filter), is not going to go away.…
Christ bore our sins in his body, 1 Pet 2:21-25
The suffering of Christ is certainly presented in these verses as exemplary, but this does not exhaust the meaning. For one thing, there are clear allusions to Isa 53, and to the Suffering Servant from whose sufferings we benefit. The ‘bearing’ of sins in Isa 53 implies the bearing of punishment. And the echo of Isa 53:5 in ‘by his wounds you have been healed’ highlight the fact that he suffered so that we might not – substitutionary atonement indeed. …
The image of the crucifixion at ‘hanging on a tree’ in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29 evokes the words of Deuteronomy 21:25 – ‘anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse’.
This raises the question, ‘Why would the sinless Christ be curses by God?’ Gal 3:10-13 supplies the answer.
The argument is simple: Jesus bore the curse that was due to others, thereby redeeming them from that curse. He bore the penalty in our place.…
