What About Israel? Part II

Has the church inherited the land promises given to Israel in the Old Testament? There are some Christians (Amillennialists and Postmillennialists) who believe that because of Israel’s disobedience and rejection of the Messiah that she has forfeited her national land promises. The church, according to this view, is seen as replacing Israel, as the true Israel. The land promises are spiritualized and now belong to the church. Interestingly, those who espouse replacement theology interpret the curses upon Israel literally, but spiritualize the land promises. But such a claim as this cannot be substantiated from the biblical text. In the seventy-three citations of “Israel” in the New Testament the meaning is always ethnic Israel. The key verse used by replacement theologians, in their attempt to make the church spiritual Israel, is Galatians 6:16 (“and upon the Israel of God”). But this passage is best understood as referring to Christian Jews who realize they are no longer in the age of the Law and have not submitted to legalism. Those who believe that the church has inherited Israel’s Land promise have to rely on a spiritualization of the biblical text. Passages from the Old Testament that describe in detail Israel’s promised national restoration (Hosea 14; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 7:11-20) are turned into “symbols” and “types.” For example, The Reformation Study Bible comments on Amos 9:15 regarding the statement, “the land I have given them,” that “The physical Promised Land is but a type of the New Israel’s life in Christ; it points forward to the heavenly Jerusalem.” This kind of interpretation (in my judgment, a hermeneutical virus) has the effect of turning the Old Testament into a riddle. The prophets of the Old Testament and their original audiences would not have had a clue as to what was really being promised Israel. The Abrahamic Covenant guarantees permanent ownership of the promised land to Israel. This does not mean, however, that Israel is guaranteed continual occupancy of the land. A converted Israel (“all Israel will be saved,” Rom. 11:26) under the rule of the Messiah will renew her divine right to possess the land of Canaan.

What will be the sequence of events for the nation of Israel prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? In the first quarter of the Tribulation the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt and Israel will exist in Palestine as a nation. There will be some kind of security guarantee that will make this possible, perhaps through the covenant made with the Antichrist (Daniel 9:27; Revelation 11:1). In the middle of the seven- year Tribulation period the Antichrist will invade Jerusalem and will desecrate the Temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation 13:11-15). An intense period of Anti-Semitism will plague Israel as many Jews are persecuted and killed. But many Jews will flee Jerusalem as the Antichrist launches an attack against the city. For a brief time Jewish forces will hold the city, but just when total destruction seems imminent, Jesus the Messiah will return. The remnant of Israel will be rescued, the nations will be judged, and Jesus Christ will begin His millennial rule in Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:4, 9; 14:2; Revelation 19:11-21). There are many other details to this Second Coming scenario, but from this brief outline we can see that the nation of Israel will be in the middle of international conflict during the coming Tribulation. We may also assume that the events preceding Christ’s return will cast their shadows back upon that time leading up to the rapture of the Christ and the appearance of the Antichrist. It is possible to see a kind of a dress-rehearsal for these things in current events. Israel is paying a great price at the present time to secure the safety of her citizens and protection of her borders. It seems that Israel has little support in the community of nations. Actually, there are those who want Israel to be destroyed. The world deceives itself into thinking it can create a lasting peace through diplomatic efforts and political alliances.

How should Christians pray about the conflict in the Middle East? Petition should be made to God “on behalf of all men, for kings, and all who are in authority” (I Timothy 2:1-2). We pray because God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” A climate of peace creates better circumstances for the spread of the gospel. There is much evangelistic gain to be made when the nations are not at war with one another. So we should pray for peace of the kind that can exist in some measure before the Prince of Peace comes to give us lasting, justice-satisfying, truth-believing, Christ-exalting peace. Pray for the Jewish and Arab Christians that live in the Middle East. They are there and are enduring much suffering. They need boldness for gospel witness, harmony among themselves, and encouragement from their brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.

As we pray we must think of how our own sins have contributed to the development of Islamic terrorism. Why has not the church of Jesus Christ sent thousands of self-denying, cross-bearing, Christ-exalting missionaries to the Muslim people everywhere? Pray that God will send revival to his church and raise up a world-impacting host of gospel-proclaiming Christians. When God revealed to Daniel that a new era in His dealings with the Jew was beginning, he had to be reminded that there is an invisible war taking place (Daniel 10). Daniel’s longing to know Israel’s future required a glimpse into the hand-to-hand combat being waged in the heavenly places. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood Michael the archangel and had delayed the answer to Daniel’s prayer. He was also told that the prince of Greece would come (Daniel 11:20). The prince of Persia and the prince of Greece are evil angels who wage warfare on behalf of these earthly kingdoms. Do we not see the implications of this? There are demonic powers at work to influence and energize nations against God and His people (Eph. 6:10). Prevailing prayer is our God-given weapon against Satan’s ongoing plan to deceive the nations and establish his own enduring kingdom. Let us pray for all men everywhere including the salvation of the Jewish people and her enemies (Rom. 10:1).

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church

What About Israel? Part I

Who is Israel? The Israel of the Old Testament Scriptures was a nation comprised of the physical descendents of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Today, Israel is a nation in the Middle East founded on May 14, 1948 as a homeland for Jews from all parts of the world. Its capital is Jerusalem and its official languages are Hebrew and Arabic. In 1897 Theodor Herzel announced the purpose of the Zionist movement “to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” That early dream was realized in the establishment of Israel as a nation.

Who are the Jews? The Jews are descendents of Abraham through his son Isaac. The word “Jew” is derived from the name “Judah”, a son of Jacob and a tribe of Israel. Both a common faith and a common history have helped to hold the Jewish people together. Over four thousand years ago God called Abraham out of idol- worshiping Ur of the Chaldeans (modern Iraq). He was told that he would be the father of a great nation and that in him all the families of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 12:1-3). That nation was Israel who was to be a witness to all the nations of God’s salvation and the channel through whom the Savior of the world would come. The impact of the Jewish people upon civilization has been phenomenal. The Old Testament came to us through Israel. Jesus Christ was born a Jew. The twelve apostles were Jews and the church was born in the womb of Judaism.

Should Christians support Israel in the conflict in the Middle East? Any nation that is attacked by another nation has a moral right to defend itself (Rom. 13:1-7). So, certainly in that sense Israel should be supported as it goes to war against those who would launch a military offensive against her. We would say the same if America were attacked as it was on September 11, 2001. The basis of this support of Israel, however, is not on Israel’s theocratic mandate in the Old Testament (Deut. 20). Today God is not Israel’s “commander-in-chief” as He was when Israel functioned under the Mosaic Covenant. The nation of Israel does not exist today as the kind of nation she was when called to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). Christians may differ on how Israel goes about defending herself against Islamic totalitarianism, but all should agree that a democracy, like Israel, in the Middle East is a good thing.

Is Israel’s nationhood a fulfillment of Bible prophecy? Another question is also involved here, namely, “Does Israel have a biblical claim to the land of Palestine?” There are evangelical Christians who say that Israel has a right to the land she now possesses because of the land promises delineated under God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15:18-21). Israel’s presence in Palestine is biblically significant, but is not the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. The promises in Scripture regarding the regathering of Israel await their fulfillment when Israel believes at the time of the return of the Messiah (Ezek. 36:14, Amos 9:15, a Zech. 10:8). At the present time Israel is experiencing a “partial hardening . . . until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25). Some Jews are being saved, but most of Israel refuses to accept Jesus as their Messiah. But one day at the completion of God’s program with the Gentiles “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). Ethnic Israel has a future, and it will be realized when Jesus Christ returns to earth in the splendor of His Second Coming. The nation as a whole will turn to her Messiah and believe in Him (Zech. 12:10). In summary, it can be said that Israel has the right to exist as a nation in Palestine like any nation does under internationally recognized legal rights. But there is no biblical claim to the possession of the Promised Land today. Christians are divided over how to interpret the Old Testament promises regarding Israel’s future restoration. Some say that these promises no longer apply to ethnic Israel but must be “spiritualized” and understood as applying to the church in this age. Many others believe that Israel does have a future as promised in the Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant. A consistent literal hermeneutic (i.e. the art and science of interpreting the Bible) points to a literal fulfillment of the land promises in the Old Testament in the “golden-age” of an earthly millennial kingdom.

Why are so many nations of the world set against the nation of Israel? The reasons are probably as varied as the individual nations. But one very real possibility is the ugly specter of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or persecution of Jews because they are Jews. Haman’s attempted plot to destroy all the Jews in Persia is an early example of hatred of Israel (Esth. 3:6; 9:24). Satan has attempted to eliminate the Jewish people throughout their history. He wanted to keep the Messiah from being born and now wants to keep Israel from being in a position to experience the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in the coming kingdom (Rev. 12:1-6). Islamic Jihadists are committed to driving Israel out of her place in Palestine and have drawn many into their virulent anti-Semitism. It has been correctly observed that “the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany became the anti-Zionist propaganda of the Arab cause” (A Historical Survey of Anti-Semitism, Richard E. Gade). One example of this is found in a ninth grade textbook paid for and published by Saudi Arabia which says, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.” All this is not to say that Israel is above criticism. She has no divine carte blanche to do whatever she wishes. But the way in which the United Nations so often censures Israel while ignoring atrocities committed against her raises deep suspicions.

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church

Proud as a Peacock

The male peacock unfurls its feathered plume in a dazzling display of color. He does this as he parades pompously in front of the female peacock. Whether he is proud is undetermined but his dazzling display of color has given us the expression “proud as a peacock.” There is a morally legitimate use of the word proud as, for example, when we derive pleasure from a job well done. This is part of what it means to be made in the image of God (“and God saw that it was good,” Gen. 1). However, there is a pride that has made a home in every human heart. And it is not pretty. It is that attitude which views oneself as the center of the universe. Our culture has placed it on the pedestal of virtue. Embarrassingly, we find it everywhere. It thumps its chest in songs like “I did it my way.” Athletes flaunt it when they dance in the end zone (forgetting how they got there). We hear it in such statements as “We can define our own existence.” “You owe it to yourself.” “I deserve better than this.” “You must learn to love yourself.” Public radio airs a program entitled “the infinite mind” (without any disclaimer). Self-congratulatory pride has received revered status in certain psychological and educational schools of thought. Self-esteem, self-love, self-fulfillment, self-actualization have become the goal of the self-consumed. Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. has observed “that, in much of contemporary American culture aggressive self-regard is no longer viewed with alarm.” Feeling good about oneself has replaced the discipline of personal achievement through hard work.

It was Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who being full of himself boastfully said, “Is this not Babylon the great, which I have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” Babylon, indeed, was a magnificent city, but Nebuchadnezzar was taking credit where credit was not due. He had a lesson to learn in humility. God is absolutely sovereign. After seven years of divinely imposed insanity, Nebuchadnezzar immerged with a different view of himself and God. He acknowledged God as “the Most High” and the one who deserves praise (Dan. 4:34). Sinful pride afflicts not only kings, but all of us. It has a home in every human heart. It entered the human race through Adam and Eve’s foolish choice to listen to Satan rather than God. Satan, himself a pathological liar, deceived Eve into thinking that independence from God is the way to happiness. She preferred her own ideas, thoughts and opinions over God’s truth. Pride is unbelief. It is the refusal to listen to God. It loves oneself more than God. Adam, Eve, and Nebuchadnezzar committed the sin of displacing God with themselves. Each of us, sinners that we are, is infected with a virus of the heart that distorts the world of spiritual realities. We are inclined by nature to replace the infinite mind of God and His wisdom with our own finite, sin-blinded thinking. That is why pride is a “species of unbelief.” The proud person disregards the authority of the Word of God and in so doing tells God to go away. Such arrogance is the root of every act of distrust toward God which is the mother of all self-deception.

Pride, like a Pandora’s box, unleashes armies of human ills (Pandora is Greek mythology’s distorted memory of Eve’s deception). It is the source of strife and wars (Prov. 28:25). It refuses to take advice and submit to authority. It abuses people, ignites anger, is ungrateful, boasts, is self-righteous, and leads to self-destruction (Prov. 16:5; 18:12). Pride is intoxication with one’s self-importance. Haman built the scaffold for his own execution out of pride (Esther 5-7). Satan doomed himself to eternal torment through pride (Isa. 14:12-15; 1 Tim. 3:6; Rev. 20:10).

God hates pride and resists proud people (Prov. 8:13; 16:5; Jas. 4:6). The dragon of pride must be slain if we are to live as humble people. When we boast in our wisdom and despise the sin-forgiving cross-work of Christ, eternal life will remain unattainable. That is why the sword of the Spirit, God’s holy Word as the instrument of the gospel message, is the only weapon that can kill Christ-rejecting pride. Repentance and faith in Jesus Christ through the enabling power of the Holy Spirit is the gate to everlasting life. In the new birth the heart kneels before a holy, righteous, and loving God and casts away all confidence in self for salvation.

As the Christian journeys on toward heaven there is a battle to be fought with pride every step of the way. Pride will carry on its insurgency mission in the heart. It no longer rules, but it remains a formidable foe. Our sense of self-sufficiency, our prayerlessness, and desire to be served rather than to serve tell us that sinful pride dies a slow death. Pride is the fuel of spiritual lukewarmness. The Laodicean church is a prime example (Rev. 3:16-18). Laodicea was a self-reliant, wealthy city and, as so often happens, the sins of the culture become the sins of the church. Spiritual indifference, a spiritual malaise, was sapping the zeal and spiritual energy of the Laodicean believers. They were proud of their wealth and comforts. We too can become self-satisfied because our church parking lots are full, the offerings are good, and our pastor’s books are selling well. Christian leaders can marquee their titles and academic credentials. Personality cults, tolerance of immorality and false teaching are the marks of vain-glory, not humility before God (1 Cor. 1:10-4:21). The male peacock displays his colors because that is his nature to do so. He is only a bird. But God has made us to worship Him. Let us make much of Him and less of ourselves.

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church

All Eyes on Germany

Unbeknownst to many, if not most, Americans, the eyes of the rest of the world have been fixed on Germany for the past month. Recall the excited anticipation, the nervous nail-biting, the thrill of victory, and the anguish of defeat brought on by March Madness. Now raise all of those feelings to the thousandth power. That’s the World Cup. Fans of all 64 national teams who enter FIFA’s (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) quarter annual soccer tournament experience a frenzy unmatched by any other sporting event in the world. I can remember being awoken at 3:00 am by the tumultuous sound of San Jose celebrating a goal from the Costa Rican team during the last World Cup (2002); three weeks ago the country of Ghana actually mandated a half-day holiday so that its citizens could watch their team play the United States. I have to confess that all too often my days have been scheduled around the next big game; anyone who has seen the corner office down stairs knows this to be true.

Watching international events, like the World Cup, always elicits interesting comments from people. Though I am not one who enjoys listening to sports commentators, they have consistently made one statement throughout the World Cup that continues to interest me. For whatever reason, commentators want to praise players for their “goodwill” towards one another. Matches seem riddled by talk lauding the players and fans of various nations for their ability to coexist in that stadium peaceably. This sort of talk does not end merely with the match, but branches out into a collective sense of awe that so many different people (with differing worldviews, values, and interests) could gather peaceably in one place with a single focus. Commentators, further, speak in such a way that points to this as the archetype and ideal for the way the world should always function: “Look at how all of these different people can live together in peace! Can we not all live this way?!”

As great and hopeful as such an ideal may appear, we must not be duped by such nonsense. An ideal is just that—ideal. And to fall into the chorus of the commentators is a poor ideal, at best! A match ends after only 90 minutes and the entire World Cup lasts barely a month.
We as Christians know better. Nothing outside of Jesus Christ can bring anyone together in any sort of lasting peace.

Certainly this stands true within the church. Think of the early church—how else could Jew and Gentile, poor and rich, as well as slave and master have been melded into a single body? Only where the peace of Christ ruled in hearts, the word of Christ dwelt within, and a desire for the glory of Christ reigned could such a diverse group ever come together in peace and unity (Col. 3:10-17). I have been able to travel beyond the borders of the United States a handful of times. Each time, I have been reminded of the truth of unity in Christ that Paul knew so well. While I have very little in common with my Kazakh, Bosnian, Russian, Costa Rican, Polish, or Afghan brethren, we are able to share a perfect bond that does not wane. Our bond is sealed in Christ, the Head, “from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” (Eph. 4:16)

Ultimately, we understand that the unity and peace of diverse peoples in Christ exists for His exaltation. The apostle John testifies of this glorious truth when he witnesses a glimpse of Heaven:

“After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude of which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ ” (Rev. 7:9-10)

Unlike a 90 minute soccer match or month-long tournament, the peace and unity of God’s diverse elect will last for eternity, to the praise of His glory. Truly, salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the risen Lamb, Jesus Christ.

Patrick Work
Berachah Bible Church

The Atonement of Christ: Gratuitous Love or Divine Child Abuse?

Several years ago I made a personal resolution to read fewer books well rather than read more with only a cursory interest. One such book was John Stott’s masterful work, The Cross of Christ. Though Stott’s book (like many of my books) was relegated to that ever-growing number of “I really need to read this” books, I was strangely drawn to its cover—a simple, almost banal, rendering of the cross. I eventually found myself engrossed in every page of the book, causing the simple message of its cover to become inescapably apparent: There is nothing glamorous about the cross of Christ.

The force and significance of the cross, however, has been significantly anesthetized in our day. In many instances, it is nothing more than an accepted form of décor—adorning buildings, letterheads, and people’s necks. But, this was far from the case in the 1st century. The cross was reserved only for the worst of criminals. In fact, this belief was so prevalent that even Cicero, in one of his speeches, could condemn it as, “a most cruel and disgusting punishment.”[i]

With this understanding of the cross in mind, we can only wonder why such a symbol of evil, shame, and incredible rejection should hold such a prominent place in Christian thought and practice. Undoubtedly, the apostle Paul expected such a response from unbelievers when confronted with the importance of the cross to the Christian faith. Seeking to preach nothing but “Christ and him crucified,” (1 Cor 2:2) Paul quite candidly acknowledged that the message of the cross would be “folly to those who are perishing” (1 Cor 1:18).

So, why the centrality of the cross? Why not the centrality of the dove or manger or the stone which was rolled away from the tomb—all of which convey images of Christ and none of which carry with them the connotations of violence and utter disrepute as does the cross.[ii] According to Stott, only one explanation may be posited for why the cross became the Christian symbol—it was because “the centrality of the cross originated in the mind of Jesus himself.”[iii] From his birth, the cross cast its shadow over his head. As Stott notes, “His death was central to his mission.... What dominated his mind was not the living but the giving of his life.”[iv]

Not only is the symbol of the cross central to Christian discipleship, but the message behind the cross also remains central to the gospel itself. Someone has rightly said that a cross-less Christianity is a Christ-less Christianity.[v] Furthermore, I would argue that the traditional notion of penal substitutionary atonement—the substitutionary interposition of Jesus Christ to absorb in himself the wrath of God against our sin and secure a renewed access to God—is also crucial to a full-orbed understanding of Christ’s work. If the doctrine of the atonement is considered to be one of the central tenets of traditional Christianity (and it most certainly is), then, as retired Gordon-Conwell Seminary professor Roger Nicole puts it, substitution should be viewed as the “major linchpin,” without which the unified function of several other parts are no longer able to perform their own functions and float away in futility.[vi]

Today, however, we need look no farther than our churches to find widespread disgust and reticence over the profundity of the theory of penal substitution. Perhaps as never before, the notion of substitution, which inherently entails a form of retributive justice, is under severe attack by the postmodern community. The criticisms put forward by Joel Green and Mark Baker in their book, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts, serve as representative of the ubiquitous nature of such postmodern attacks. In their book, Green and Baker outline a handful of reasons why, in their opinion, one of the most pervasive metaphors for making sense of the cross is wholly inadequate. Perhaps most ‘in vogue’ among these reasons is the charge that a penal substitution model can be easily construed by persons in and outside the church as a form of divine child abuse and, therefore, should be made more accommodating to the 21st century Christian mind.[vii]

Postmoderns claim that penal substitution, which presupposes a divine economic exchange whereby the wrath of God is placated only after Christ’s death, espouses a system of justice more akin to the lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) than a gracious and loving God.[viii] Regarding this so-called “murderous exchange,” theologian Kevin Vanhoozer sums up the postmodern critique:

To interpret Jesus’ death within the framework of such an exchange economy is, in the eyes of postmodern critics, to legitimate a violent cycle of retaliation and retribution, all in the name of “justice.” Hence, the scandal of the cross is not metaphysical (how could God suffer and die?) but moral: Does God need to be placated before he can love and forgive? Is God party to an economy of retaliatory exchange?[ix]

Answers to such questions do not come easy. Nevertheless, a good place to begin is with a proper recognition of how the Bible depicts God’s righteousness and his jealousy.[x] First, we must realize that the very holiness of God is at stake. God’s holiness ensures his settled antagonism towards the sinful rebelliousness of his creatures. If this were not so, he would no longer be holy. [xi] Second, the key to comprehending how the wrath of God is not at odds with his love is to understand it first as a covenantal love. Upon doing this, we will no longer see God’s love as mere sentimental affection, but as a covenant commitment, a jealous love that leads to wrath when it is abused.[xii] In light of this, the tendency of Postmoderns and others to see the traditional view of the atonement as a capricious outburst of rage by the Father enacted upon his Son then becomes unfounded. In the words of John Calvin:

We do not admit that God was ever hostile with him, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, “in whom his soul delighted?” or how could Christ, by his intercession, appease the Father for others, if the Father were incensed against him? But we affirm, that he sustained the weight of the Divine severity; since, being “smitten and afflicted of God” (Is 53:4), he experienced from God all the tokens of wrath and vengeance.[xiii]

Finally, the supposed “immorality’ of the cross is further assuaged when we relate a biblical Christology to a biblical hermeneutic of the atonement.[xiv] Our substitute who died our death on the cross was neither Christ alone nor God alone, but God in Christ, who on that account was uniquely qualified to represent both God and man and to mediate between them.[xv] Karl Barth perhaps captures this concept best when he says, “The passion of Jesus Christ is the judgment of God, in which the Judge himself was the judged.”[xvi] This merciful truth, brothers and sisters, is the wisdom and glory of the cross.[xvii]

[i]John R. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986), 24.
[ii]Ibid., 21.
[iii]Ibid., 25.
[iv]Ibid., 17, 32.
[v]Wellum, “The Importance of the Cross in the New Testament,” 1.
[vi]Roger Nicole, “Postscript on Penal Substitution,” 445-47.
[vii]Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 27-32.
[viii]Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Atonement in Post Modernity: Guilt, Goats and Gifts,” 372.
[ix]Ibid., 372.
[x]John Frame, “The Doctrine of God,” 467.
[xi]Robert Letham, “The Work of Christ,” 141.
[xii]Frame, “The Doctrine of God,” 467.
[xiii]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion vol. 1, ed. by John T. McNeill, trans. and in. by Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 565.
[xiv]For a more thorough look at the different historical views, as well as, a more comprehensive review of the issues surrounding the current debate over the atonement, see Mark Dever’s recent Christianity Today article, “Nothing but the Blood.” Here, Dever shows that, contrary to the misguided notion that he was blindsided by the cross, Christ willingly offered his life up as a panacea for the cosmic repercussions of sin.
[xv]Stott, ”The Cross of Christ,” 156.
[xvi]Karl Barth, “Church Dogmatics,” 254.
[xvii]For a theologically sound and poetically fulfilling statement of penal substitutionary atonement put to music, see Bob Kauflin’s song, “The Glory of the Cross.”

Chris Bosson
Berachah Bible Church