What do you think?
Rate this book
Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement
How can an event that has taken place in the past have an effect upon the human experience of salvation in the present? In examining one of the essential questions of the Christian faith, Paul S. Fiddes explores the limits as well as the gains to be made in speaking about crucifixion as a historical event, and considers the relationship of the crucifixion to the continuing process of God's saving activity. He considers the relevance of a past act of atonement to such areas of practical experience as forgiveness, liberation, and suffering.
254 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1989
1 person is currently reading
31 people want to read
About the author
Paul S. Fiddes
35 books9 followersPaul S. Fiddes is an English Baptist theologian and novelist. Fiddes is Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology in the University of Oxford, Principal Emeritus and Senior Research Fellow of Regent's Park College, Oxford and a former Chairman of the Oxford Faculty of Theology. He holds a DPhil in Theology from Oxford (1975) and was awarded a DD from Oxford (2004). He is Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of Bucharest, and a Fellow of the British Academy (2020).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Past Event and Present Salvation" by Paul Stuart Fiddes.
Just for starters, I appreciate so much how well this is written. That is for language and also it doesnt seem that Fiddes is attached at the hip to a pet model of the atonement.
He begins by pointing to C.S. Lewis having a hang up with "how can a death from two thousand years ago impact me today?" And truly, this is a good question, but I dont think Lewis asked a bad question. Since I am reading Mere Christianity once more while I am reading this work I will keep my eyes open for Lewis hammering home this point for what may have been to him fear of others having his self same problem or hang-up.
Also, I love how Fiddes points out that the root of "salvation" is "healing." And that salvation is offered in the present.
He makes some astute observations: "Jesus saves" has often been read back sermonically as "Jesus saved." I think where this may lead is the difference between the validity of objective and subjective atonement models: if "Jesus saved" then I am but morally inspired (Abelard) to be a better person. If "Jesus Saves" then He conquered Satan by defeating sin--by becoming the sinless sin offering--and death, then defeating death. This happened historically and cosmically, once and for all, unlimited (of course inused that word on purpose).
Also, Fiddes points out that many of the analogies historically used in sermons--stepping in at the 11th hour to save one from an execution--is dated because more and more places are getting rid of the death penalty. Jesus and the gospel hasn't changed but our analogical language must.
"Forgiveness is no mere business; it is a 'shattering experience' for the one who forgives as well as the one who is forgiven," p 16. The reason the above is so is that God wants a reciprocal relationship with us, one that transcends just mere pardon of past wrongs. Reconciliation is so much broader than pardon. Pardon is checking a box; reconciliation is asking for ones hand in marriage [my interpretation of the difference].
Later in chapter 2 Fiddes states that for the Hebrew creation and redemption are inseparable. He goes on to show how the very narrative of scripture shows that in creation God was redeeming. This gets into Yam, Leviathan et al. But after all of the atonement theology texts inhale read Fiddes' is the first to point out this creation/redemption point and tie it together with scripture.
On the continual suffering of God:
"However this approach [seeing God as impassive] was due less to biblical pictures of God than to Greek Platonist philosophy in which God was understood as the very summit of pure being, totally unlike the state of becoming or change in which the world existed," p 22.
Early thinkers who held to an immutable and impassive God had to hold to a view that God-in-man was a one time event where God "tasted" suffering but for that solidarity of suffering to go on beyond ~33 ad would have meant that God has, is and will be impassive. That is interesting.
Fiddes has a section on objective and subjective elements of the atonement. I wholeheartedly agree that the question is not is a model of the atonement objective or subjective but how well does the model incorporate both elements. Then Fiddes smacks Gustav Aulen around for claiming that penal substitution is objective and moral influence is subjective (Christus Victor was still a good book but I agree with the aforementioned "integration" of objective and subjective elements).
"By choosing to reveal Himself fully in a crucified manhood contradicts all notions of what it means to be 'divine'; by becoming weak and prey to death God makes foolish the wisdom of the world which understands power to be the ability to inflict suffering, or at least to escape from it," p 32.
Fiddes is working with a tri-fold salvation: past, present and future. The language of scripture is rich with "we were saved..." "we are saved..." "we will be saved...." When he speaks about the eschatological part of salvation--will be saved--he takes up the liberation mantle and speaks to how our future should impact our present.
Fiddes has a really rocking chapter on History and Faith, or as I believe we could say, the difference (if there be one) between the Christ of history and the Cosmic Christ. He dips his toe in some Christology but doesnt dive in so far that he gets disjointed from the overwhelming "atonement" theme of the book. I have to admit that I found the question of "the sonship of function" compares to "the sonship of being" was a very interesting concept.
He moves on to models and concepts associated with the atonement. The first being sacrifice. He begins by dealing with literal and metaphorical sacrifice. I believe this is to introduce objective and subjective aspects of the atonement into the discussion. Interestingly Fiddes says that even the Old Testament has both literal and metaphorical aspects associated to a sacrifice: dont offer your animal to God without a repentant heart. Also, after the temple was sacked in 70ad the Jews had to stop ritual animal sacrifices and replaced them with a "gift offering" or sacrifice of fasting. This was a literal to metaphorical conversion. The apostolic church saw praise as a sacrifice (more metaphorical than literal) and sharing what each had with those who didnt (more literal than metaphorical). And these sacrifices were because of the sacrifice of Christ. I noticed that in the discussion of Christ as sacrifice Fiddes noted that he anticipated that people would be looking for "Christ our expiation." I like the way he rolls so far.
He is very good with language.
"An offering to atone for sin was no automatic mechanism [in Judaism] but required the spiritual sacrifice of a 'broken and contrite heart' to accompany it," p 66. He is working objective and subjective together so well that--and maybe it's just me--i see a monergistic and synergistic comparison here too.
He continues to explore propionation and expiation under the heading of sacrifice as seen through the eyes of a Jew. He makes the best case in have yet heard why one should translate Hilasterion as expiation. Working off of a Jewish sacrificial concept one must first ask what the sacrifice did for whom. For the Jews it removed sin. For the pagans it appeased the wrath of their god(s).
The next chapter deals with the atonement model of justice. I like that he begins by saying that we cant translate what happened in a jewish semi-secret court case to be totally analogous to what happened cosmically. Or chill with your courtroom motifs when speaking about the objective side of the judicial motifs in atonement models. Otherwise what happens is that the atonement is reduced to an equation that could have happened at any time by any method on any planet.
While the Pauline use of justification is legal it is not Roman, it is Hebrew. In Hebrew courts all cases were civil therefore no public defender, and the outcome had to do with rectifying the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant.
Speaking to Calvin's penal substitution in light of Amselm Fiddes says that it is heavily objective and leaves little room for the subjective. I would think this is because of Calvin's view being anchored in determinism which leaves no room for any subjective "work" for the person for fear of Pelagianism.
In his section on Christus Victor he begins by sketching what the model looks like and then immediately says we should know who the enemy is. He then begins by identifying the tyrants. Classifying them into three categories he lists them as this: 1. Sin, law and death 2. Satan 3. Principalities and powers. Demons says he are harder to classify as they can be seen in all three categories.
His section on law, sin and death was very good. His part on Satan was interesting as it tried very hard to maintain personhood while affirming a more "corporate personification of evil." He seeks to strike a line between Walter Wink's concept of Satan as no person and Sister Agnus who cant stub her toe without seeing Satan oppressing her (this is not to make fun of the fictitious sister Agnus; I am closer to her than Wink).
Speaking to the principalities and powers Fiddes goes down the Mike Heiser road of the unseen realm: Yahweh was God over Israel and the other (70) nations had their own god. These gods were who made up the heavenly council.
To place a subjective side to Christus Victor Fiddes states that seeing the structures of our oppression overcome make this model more than an objective victory over Satan. The historical and cosmic part was the defeat of Satan; the present "what does this elicit from me" part is partaking in the victory by not being subjected to law, sin and death.
Here too an objective reality of Christus Victor is the body or community of Christ that His victory made. The subjective reciprocation is our reenacting of His death, burial and resurrection by baptism in the community of Christ. By this we proclaim His victory as ours in the present.
Fiddes moves on the Abelard's moral influence. At first sight that is could be more than just a subjective model of the atonement seems unobtainable. Abelard's model has been viewed as only subjective historically from all I have read. Since this book deals with trying to synthesize the objective and subjective I thought this a hopeless task. But it seems that seeing moral influence this way is misplaced; reading Abelard's commentary on Roman's shows a scholar who is highly concerned with what God does for us by reconciling all things to Him.
In speaking to how in moral transformation God expressed love Abelard is at a loss. He asserts that God does but doesnt say how. Fiddes swoops in at the last moment and saves Abelard by using a weapon Abelard couldnt: God suffered. Impassibility made Abelard's moral transformation lopsided.
"Jesus calls us to follow him in unmasking all powers that seek to usurp the place of God; He calls us to break the idols, and then to accept the consequences," p 201.
This may be the another top 3 books of the year (the other is "The Crucifixion," by Rutledge). His approach of looking at the subjective and objective sides of different models of the atonement was a great benefit for me. Fiddes has a beautiful mind. Thank you for this book.
Just for starters, I appreciate so much how well this is written. That is for language and also it doesnt seem that Fiddes is attached at the hip to a pet model of the atonement.
He begins by pointing to C.S. Lewis having a hang up with "how can a death from two thousand years ago impact me today?" And truly, this is a good question, but I dont think Lewis asked a bad question. Since I am reading Mere Christianity once more while I am reading this work I will keep my eyes open for Lewis hammering home this point for what may have been to him fear of others having his self same problem or hang-up.
Also, I love how Fiddes points out that the root of "salvation" is "healing." And that salvation is offered in the present.
He makes some astute observations: "Jesus saves" has often been read back sermonically as "Jesus saved." I think where this may lead is the difference between the validity of objective and subjective atonement models: if "Jesus saved" then I am but morally inspired (Abelard) to be a better person. If "Jesus Saves" then He conquered Satan by defeating sin--by becoming the sinless sin offering--and death, then defeating death. This happened historically and cosmically, once and for all, unlimited (of course inused that word on purpose).
Also, Fiddes points out that many of the analogies historically used in sermons--stepping in at the 11th hour to save one from an execution--is dated because more and more places are getting rid of the death penalty. Jesus and the gospel hasn't changed but our analogical language must.
"Forgiveness is no mere business; it is a 'shattering experience' for the one who forgives as well as the one who is forgiven," p 16. The reason the above is so is that God wants a reciprocal relationship with us, one that transcends just mere pardon of past wrongs. Reconciliation is so much broader than pardon. Pardon is checking a box; reconciliation is asking for ones hand in marriage [my interpretation of the difference].
Later in chapter 2 Fiddes states that for the Hebrew creation and redemption are inseparable. He goes on to show how the very narrative of scripture shows that in creation God was redeeming. This gets into Yam, Leviathan et al. But after all of the atonement theology texts inhale read Fiddes' is the first to point out this creation/redemption point and tie it together with scripture.
On the continual suffering of God:
"However this approach [seeing God as impassive] was due less to biblical pictures of God than to Greek Platonist philosophy in which God was understood as the very summit of pure being, totally unlike the state of becoming or change in which the world existed," p 22.
Early thinkers who held to an immutable and impassive God had to hold to a view that God-in-man was a one time event where God "tasted" suffering but for that solidarity of suffering to go on beyond ~33 ad would have meant that God has, is and will be impassive. That is interesting.
Fiddes has a section on objective and subjective elements of the atonement. I wholeheartedly agree that the question is not is a model of the atonement objective or subjective but how well does the model incorporate both elements. Then Fiddes smacks Gustav Aulen around for claiming that penal substitution is objective and moral influence is subjective (Christus Victor was still a good book but I agree with the aforementioned "integration" of objective and subjective elements).
"By choosing to reveal Himself fully in a crucified manhood contradicts all notions of what it means to be 'divine'; by becoming weak and prey to death God makes foolish the wisdom of the world which understands power to be the ability to inflict suffering, or at least to escape from it," p 32.
Fiddes is working with a tri-fold salvation: past, present and future. The language of scripture is rich with "we were saved..." "we are saved..." "we will be saved...." When he speaks about the eschatological part of salvation--will be saved--he takes up the liberation mantle and speaks to how our future should impact our present.
Fiddes has a really rocking chapter on History and Faith, or as I believe we could say, the difference (if there be one) between the Christ of history and the Cosmic Christ. He dips his toe in some Christology but doesnt dive in so far that he gets disjointed from the overwhelming "atonement" theme of the book. I have to admit that I found the question of "the sonship of function" compares to "the sonship of being" was a very interesting concept.
He moves on to models and concepts associated with the atonement. The first being sacrifice. He begins by dealing with literal and metaphorical sacrifice. I believe this is to introduce objective and subjective aspects of the atonement into the discussion. Interestingly Fiddes says that even the Old Testament has both literal and metaphorical aspects associated to a sacrifice: dont offer your animal to God without a repentant heart. Also, after the temple was sacked in 70ad the Jews had to stop ritual animal sacrifices and replaced them with a "gift offering" or sacrifice of fasting. This was a literal to metaphorical conversion. The apostolic church saw praise as a sacrifice (more metaphorical than literal) and sharing what each had with those who didnt (more literal than metaphorical). And these sacrifices were because of the sacrifice of Christ. I noticed that in the discussion of Christ as sacrifice Fiddes noted that he anticipated that people would be looking for "Christ our expiation." I like the way he rolls so far.
He is very good with language.
"An offering to atone for sin was no automatic mechanism [in Judaism] but required the spiritual sacrifice of a 'broken and contrite heart' to accompany it," p 66. He is working objective and subjective together so well that--and maybe it's just me--i see a monergistic and synergistic comparison here too.
He continues to explore propionation and expiation under the heading of sacrifice as seen through the eyes of a Jew. He makes the best case in have yet heard why one should translate Hilasterion as expiation. Working off of a Jewish sacrificial concept one must first ask what the sacrifice did for whom. For the Jews it removed sin. For the pagans it appeased the wrath of their god(s).
The next chapter deals with the atonement model of justice. I like that he begins by saying that we cant translate what happened in a jewish semi-secret court case to be totally analogous to what happened cosmically. Or chill with your courtroom motifs when speaking about the objective side of the judicial motifs in atonement models. Otherwise what happens is that the atonement is reduced to an equation that could have happened at any time by any method on any planet.
While the Pauline use of justification is legal it is not Roman, it is Hebrew. In Hebrew courts all cases were civil therefore no public defender, and the outcome had to do with rectifying the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant.
Speaking to Calvin's penal substitution in light of Amselm Fiddes says that it is heavily objective and leaves little room for the subjective. I would think this is because of Calvin's view being anchored in determinism which leaves no room for any subjective "work" for the person for fear of Pelagianism.
In his section on Christus Victor he begins by sketching what the model looks like and then immediately says we should know who the enemy is. He then begins by identifying the tyrants. Classifying them into three categories he lists them as this: 1. Sin, law and death 2. Satan 3. Principalities and powers. Demons says he are harder to classify as they can be seen in all three categories.
His section on law, sin and death was very good. His part on Satan was interesting as it tried very hard to maintain personhood while affirming a more "corporate personification of evil." He seeks to strike a line between Walter Wink's concept of Satan as no person and Sister Agnus who cant stub her toe without seeing Satan oppressing her (this is not to make fun of the fictitious sister Agnus; I am closer to her than Wink).
Speaking to the principalities and powers Fiddes goes down the Mike Heiser road of the unseen realm: Yahweh was God over Israel and the other (70) nations had their own god. These gods were who made up the heavenly council.
To place a subjective side to Christus Victor Fiddes states that seeing the structures of our oppression overcome make this model more than an objective victory over Satan. The historical and cosmic part was the defeat of Satan; the present "what does this elicit from me" part is partaking in the victory by not being subjected to law, sin and death.
Here too an objective reality of Christus Victor is the body or community of Christ that His victory made. The subjective reciprocation is our reenacting of His death, burial and resurrection by baptism in the community of Christ. By this we proclaim His victory as ours in the present.
Fiddes moves on the Abelard's moral influence. At first sight that is could be more than just a subjective model of the atonement seems unobtainable. Abelard's model has been viewed as only subjective historically from all I have read. Since this book deals with trying to synthesize the objective and subjective I thought this a hopeless task. But it seems that seeing moral influence this way is misplaced; reading Abelard's commentary on Roman's shows a scholar who is highly concerned with what God does for us by reconciling all things to Him.
In speaking to how in moral transformation God expressed love Abelard is at a loss. He asserts that God does but doesnt say how. Fiddes swoops in at the last moment and saves Abelard by using a weapon Abelard couldnt: God suffered. Impassibility made Abelard's moral transformation lopsided.
"Jesus calls us to follow him in unmasking all powers that seek to usurp the place of God; He calls us to break the idols, and then to accept the consequences," p 201.
This may be the another top 3 books of the year (the other is "The Crucifixion," by Rutledge). His approach of looking at the subjective and objective sides of different models of the atonement was a great benefit for me. Fiddes has a beautiful mind. Thank you for this book.
May 29, 2017
A well-written and helpful summary of the key metaphors/models of the atonement. It's not, however, without its own bias and agenda (nor does it claim to be so). I felt that Fiddes writes off Calvin and Reformation models of substitution too quickly and places too many eggs in the basket of his preferred model of God entering into the human experience of alienation.
I'm not able to affirm his belief that in Christ God experiences something "new" - and that's not because I hold to a Platonic belief in changeless forms, but because to speak of God discovering something new is to speak of God as time-bound, which simply makes no sense to me. The cross has to be an eternal as well as a temporal event, and the humility and suffering of the Son must surely be of one with his eternal generation. (Revelation 13:8?)
Ultimately I found Fiddes' view too subjective, though a well-written and cogent argument, nonetheless.
I'm not able to affirm his belief that in Christ God experiences something "new" - and that's not because I hold to a Platonic belief in changeless forms, but because to speak of God discovering something new is to speak of God as time-bound, which simply makes no sense to me. The cross has to be an eternal as well as a temporal event, and the humility and suffering of the Son must surely be of one with his eternal generation. (Revelation 13:8?)
Ultimately I found Fiddes' view too subjective, though a well-written and cogent argument, nonetheless.
March 27, 2019
Positives: the concept of seeking to make the past event of Jesus' atoning work a present significance is a really commendable thing, and there are lots of thought-provoking ideas and applications brought forward in this book. Negatives: extremely key things, such as the fallibility of the Bible, and a rejection of any penalty being paid by Christ's vicarious death, seriously detracted from any good that this book brought to the table, and from it's aim of laying out a Christian idea of atonement, as it meant its idea ultimately isn't very Christian at all. 3 stars is a bit generous, but 2 stars would be a bit harsh as this was a useful resource for my academic studies.
February 3, 2015
Fiddes is one of the worlds foremost Baptist theologians, teaching out of Oxford University.
Growing up in church we are often given trite caricatures of what the Bible teaches about the atonement. Many times in my life, I stood puzzled asking, "Jesus saves. Jesus died for our sins. Okay. So how does this actually save me?" The logic was always unclear. One of the caricatures that obscure this logic is perpetuated in the theology of the atonement commonly called "penal substitutionary atonement." This idea proof texts passages into saying that God was angry at humans for sinning, and Jesus needed to come and die in order to fix God's wrath. Now that this happened, God can now, and only now, love humans.
This is, sadly, (1) not accurate of how Scripture understands the sacrificial and substitutionary nature of the cross: Jesus came to "expiate" sin not "propitiate" God into loving humans. Penal Substitutionary atonement, oddly, here resembles pagan notions of sacrifice where the offering is meant to change the god's mind into favouring forgotten humans. Rather Scripture's notion of sacrifice always is understood as a gift from God out of his love to create a clean conscience in the worshippers. (2) Even with the better more biblically accurate aspects of PSA theology, this still does not grasp many of the passages that use other images in the Old Testament to understand the cross event. For instance, there is ransom and redemption language that has no "penal" aspect to them. For example, Christ as a "ransom for many" in Mark seems to be a ransom to the dark powers to buy back humans from slavery to death.
So, Fiddes tries to map out these sets of imagery into four aspects: (1) sacrifice, (2) legal, (3) military, and (4) act of love. Showing that the cross is a cleansing sacrifice for those who feel unforgivable guilt, an act of legal acquittal to those who feel condemned by the law (and this is a point that PSA gets wrong: it was the corrupted justice of the law that brought condemnation on us and Jesus, not God's merciful and liberating intent of the law), and act of military victory against oppression and death (personally, politically, and cosmically), as well as a pattern of love that all believer are to emulate. The fourth image, the act of love, shows Fiddes' appreciation for Abelard, where he argues a kind of moral influence theory as the cross is the revelation of God's character to us and for us to follow. This is actually at the heart of the work of the cross and how the cross impresses its beauty upon us: the proclamation of the Gospel states that while we crucified Jesus, while we were still sinners, God was actually dying for us. Such a message is in itself redeeming.
Fiddes goes on to apply these four aspects. First he speaks about the cross as a display of God's love and forgiveness and how this creates a community of disciples commissioned to forgive. Fiddes notes that the act of forgiveness has a kind of creative potential. To know that one is forgiven opens up new possibilities for living just as the act of forgiving another causes liberation. In doing so, the church partners with God in mending the brokenness of the world. Second, Fiddes notes the the cross has very obvious political ramifications as a narrative of a person who was executed by an idolatrous empire yet was resurrected. The Gospel is the true possibility of resistance against political corruption today. Finally, Fiddes talks about the cross as God's solidarity with those suffering. God becomes godforsaken at the cross to show that there is hope for those who suffer the anguish of feeling alone and forgotten by God. It is this solidarity that again the church is called to model in order to help mend the brokenness of the world.
In these reflections we see that Fiddes is attentive to the typological patterns of Scripture. In the cross, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament imagery, embodies YHWH, and models how the Church ought to act has his body. Who God is is in Jesus, who Jesus is is who we ought to be. Similarly, at the beginning of the book, Fiddes notes that in the Hebrew understanding of time, creation is ongoing. The events of redemption today are acts of creation. For instance, Isa. 51 sees the return from exile as an act of calming the chaos of the primordial sea and also as an act similar to the exodus. In the Hebrew mind, redemption is creation and therefore the cross and resurrection are, literally, the completion of the creation week.
Growing up in church we are often given trite caricatures of what the Bible teaches about the atonement. Many times in my life, I stood puzzled asking, "Jesus saves. Jesus died for our sins. Okay. So how does this actually save me?" The logic was always unclear. One of the caricatures that obscure this logic is perpetuated in the theology of the atonement commonly called "penal substitutionary atonement." This idea proof texts passages into saying that God was angry at humans for sinning, and Jesus needed to come and die in order to fix God's wrath. Now that this happened, God can now, and only now, love humans.
This is, sadly, (1) not accurate of how Scripture understands the sacrificial and substitutionary nature of the cross: Jesus came to "expiate" sin not "propitiate" God into loving humans. Penal Substitutionary atonement, oddly, here resembles pagan notions of sacrifice where the offering is meant to change the god's mind into favouring forgotten humans. Rather Scripture's notion of sacrifice always is understood as a gift from God out of his love to create a clean conscience in the worshippers. (2) Even with the better more biblically accurate aspects of PSA theology, this still does not grasp many of the passages that use other images in the Old Testament to understand the cross event. For instance, there is ransom and redemption language that has no "penal" aspect to them. For example, Christ as a "ransom for many" in Mark seems to be a ransom to the dark powers to buy back humans from slavery to death.
So, Fiddes tries to map out these sets of imagery into four aspects: (1) sacrifice, (2) legal, (3) military, and (4) act of love. Showing that the cross is a cleansing sacrifice for those who feel unforgivable guilt, an act of legal acquittal to those who feel condemned by the law (and this is a point that PSA gets wrong: it was the corrupted justice of the law that brought condemnation on us and Jesus, not God's merciful and liberating intent of the law), and act of military victory against oppression and death (personally, politically, and cosmically), as well as a pattern of love that all believer are to emulate. The fourth image, the act of love, shows Fiddes' appreciation for Abelard, where he argues a kind of moral influence theory as the cross is the revelation of God's character to us and for us to follow. This is actually at the heart of the work of the cross and how the cross impresses its beauty upon us: the proclamation of the Gospel states that while we crucified Jesus, while we were still sinners, God was actually dying for us. Such a message is in itself redeeming.
Fiddes goes on to apply these four aspects. First he speaks about the cross as a display of God's love and forgiveness and how this creates a community of disciples commissioned to forgive. Fiddes notes that the act of forgiveness has a kind of creative potential. To know that one is forgiven opens up new possibilities for living just as the act of forgiving another causes liberation. In doing so, the church partners with God in mending the brokenness of the world. Second, Fiddes notes the the cross has very obvious political ramifications as a narrative of a person who was executed by an idolatrous empire yet was resurrected. The Gospel is the true possibility of resistance against political corruption today. Finally, Fiddes talks about the cross as God's solidarity with those suffering. God becomes godforsaken at the cross to show that there is hope for those who suffer the anguish of feeling alone and forgotten by God. It is this solidarity that again the church is called to model in order to help mend the brokenness of the world.
In these reflections we see that Fiddes is attentive to the typological patterns of Scripture. In the cross, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament imagery, embodies YHWH, and models how the Church ought to act has his body. Who God is is in Jesus, who Jesus is is who we ought to be. Similarly, at the beginning of the book, Fiddes notes that in the Hebrew understanding of time, creation is ongoing. The events of redemption today are acts of creation. For instance, Isa. 51 sees the return from exile as an act of calming the chaos of the primordial sea and also as an act similar to the exodus. In the Hebrew mind, redemption is creation and therefore the cross and resurrection are, literally, the completion of the creation week.
June 15, 2011
Fiddes provides a creative and readable overview of Christian language and major conceptions regarding the work of Christ's cross over the last two millennia, and argues for a view of the atonement that is relational rather than purely juridical, and concerned more with healing of people and restoration to God (expiation language) rather than concepts of propitiation and courtroom metaphors (and the implied change in God). It's theologically rigorous and pastorally thoughtful.
March 9, 2015
I'm not fully convinced by Fiddes' preference for "subjective" accounts of the atonement, but this is a very helpful study of how the major models of how the cross saves (sacrifice, victory, love, etc.) can still speak to us today.
December 15, 2015
One of the most helpful books I have read. This, for me, is the definitive work on atonement.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews