What do you think?
Rate this book
Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul
In recent decades, the church and academy have witnessed intense debates concerning the concept of penal substitution to describe Christ's atoning sacrifice. Some claim it promotes violence, glorifies suffering and death, and amounts to divine child abuse. Others argue it plays a pivotal role in classical Christian doctrine. Here world-renowned New Testament scholar Simon Gathercole offers an exegetical and historical defense of the traditional substitutionary view of the atonement. He provides critical analyses of various interpretations of the atonement and places New Testament teaching in its Old Testament and Greco-Roman contexts, demonstrating that the interpretation of atonement in the Pauline corpus must include substitution.
128 pages, Paperback
First published February 17, 2015
16 people are currently reading
125 people want to read
About the author
Simon J. Gathercole
19 books11 followersSimon Gathercole (PhD, University of Durham) is senior lecturer in New Testament studies in the Faculty of Divinity of the University of Cambridge and Fellow and director of studies in theology at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, England. A leading British New Testament scholar, he has written several groundbreaking books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
April 17, 2025
Brief and carefully argued, Gathercole shows that the death of Jesus was substitutionary (Christ instead of us) as well as representative (Christ with us) and liberative (Christ defeats the powers for us).
I appreciated the way he interacted with his scholarly "opposition." He frequently commended parts of their arguments even as he disagreed with their ultimate conclusion. His argumentation was modest and humble.
I appreciated the way he interacted with his scholarly "opposition." He frequently commended parts of their arguments even as he disagreed with their ultimate conclusion. His argumentation was modest and humble.
September 21, 2015
John Piper, Brian Zahn, N. T. Wright and Steve Chalke walk into a bar… Whatever hilarity may or may not ensue in this scenario, I can assure you that a discussion on the atonement would be anything but humorous.
Compare this:
if God did not punish his Son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God.
To the now-classic:
penal substitution is tantamount to ‘child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed.
Or, compare the similar, but more recent:
the Bible is clear, God did not kill Jesus […] it was not a sacrifice to appease a wrathful deity or to provide payment for a penultimate god subordinate to Justice.
With this:
to throw away the reality because you don’t like the caricature is like cutting out the patient’s heart to stop a nosebleed […] on the cross God condemned sin in the flesh of the Son
Not funny at all. In fact, entirely humorless. The question of whether Jesus took our wrath is sobering, but given what is at stake, essential. However, observing this stalemate situation, what am I to do? Enter the unassuming Simon Gathercole with his little book Defending Substitution.
Now, it must be noted that my illustration falls apart a little, for Gathercole is not setting out to establish penal substitution (that Jesus took my punishment); rather, he has a more modest goal: did Jesus die in my place in any sense? Or in other words, did Jesus die so that I would not? It’s worth saying here that in no way does Gathercole deny the very biblical sense in which we do die with Jesus (Rom 6:8); his point is that there is more to say than this alone.
Defending Substitution is boiled down to three parts: 1) an introduction of the issue that surveys the scholarly terrain, 2) an exposition of 1 Corinthians 15:3, and 3) an exposition of Romans 5:6-8.
In the introduction, he surveys three nonsubstitutionary approaches and their strengths and weaknesses. These are the Tübingen school, the Interchange model associated with Morna Hooker, and the Apocalyptic paradigm. Though each model is praised on several accounts, Gathercole notes that each fails to give sufficient weight to the problem of “sins”. That is, these models do not account for the problem of individual sins committed by individual people. This leaves a theological hole that substitution fills. If the problem were merely “sin”, then Christians simply need to be freed. However, if the problem includes “sins” that humans are culpable for committing, then deliverance is not enough; payment must be required. Hence the need for substitution.
1 Corinthians 15:3 states that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures. Supporting Paul’s focus on “sins”, the Old Testament supports the notion that one dies for their own sins (1 Kings 16:18-19). However, what if one could die for the sins of others? Gathercole argues that the Old Testament passage that is conceptually closest is that of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 (e.g. Isa 53:12). This is supported when we recognize that Romans 4:25 and Rom 8:32 allude to Isaiah 53 as well (see Isa 53:6).
In contrast with 1 Corinthians 15:3 and its dependence upon the Hebrew Scriptures, Gathercole argues that Romans 5:6-8 alludes to other heroic deaths from the literature and stories of his Greco-Roman cultural environment. In this chapter, Gathercole references classical works that depict one dying a heroic death on behalf of another. However, unlike these other deaths, Jesus’ is entirely unique, hence Paul’s statements in Romans 5:6-8!
After 29 chapters of Job debating with his three “friends”, the stalemate was broken by the appearance of young Elihu. The opinions of scholars are poles apart. Some recognize Elihu as an arrogant upstart who offered nothing new. Others compare him to John the Baptist, preparing the hearts of his hearers for Lord Himself. Which best describes Defending Substitution? As with Elihu, there will be a polarity of opinion. Either Gathercole achieves his thesis or he does not. Gathercole is to be praised for his characteristically careful and balanced argumentation. He presents a nuanced case and does not overstretch himself in this goal. While some will see Defending Substitution as unhelpful and unwelcome as Elihu, but in this reviewer’s humble opinion Gathercole is simply correct.
Satisfied, I leave behind Piper, Zahn, Wright, and Chalke to argue while I exit the bar, quietly whistling the melody of “in my place, condemned He stood”.
Many thanks to Baker Academic for providing a digital review copy. Their generosity did not affect my opinion of this book.
Compare this:
if God did not punish his Son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God.
To the now-classic:
penal substitution is tantamount to ‘child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed.
Or, compare the similar, but more recent:
the Bible is clear, God did not kill Jesus […] it was not a sacrifice to appease a wrathful deity or to provide payment for a penultimate god subordinate to Justice.
With this:
to throw away the reality because you don’t like the caricature is like cutting out the patient’s heart to stop a nosebleed […] on the cross God condemned sin in the flesh of the Son
Not funny at all. In fact, entirely humorless. The question of whether Jesus took our wrath is sobering, but given what is at stake, essential. However, observing this stalemate situation, what am I to do? Enter the unassuming Simon Gathercole with his little book Defending Substitution.
Now, it must be noted that my illustration falls apart a little, for Gathercole is not setting out to establish penal substitution (that Jesus took my punishment); rather, he has a more modest goal: did Jesus die in my place in any sense? Or in other words, did Jesus die so that I would not? It’s worth saying here that in no way does Gathercole deny the very biblical sense in which we do die with Jesus (Rom 6:8); his point is that there is more to say than this alone.
Defending Substitution is boiled down to three parts: 1) an introduction of the issue that surveys the scholarly terrain, 2) an exposition of 1 Corinthians 15:3, and 3) an exposition of Romans 5:6-8.
In the introduction, he surveys three nonsubstitutionary approaches and their strengths and weaknesses. These are the Tübingen school, the Interchange model associated with Morna Hooker, and the Apocalyptic paradigm. Though each model is praised on several accounts, Gathercole notes that each fails to give sufficient weight to the problem of “sins”. That is, these models do not account for the problem of individual sins committed by individual people. This leaves a theological hole that substitution fills. If the problem were merely “sin”, then Christians simply need to be freed. However, if the problem includes “sins” that humans are culpable for committing, then deliverance is not enough; payment must be required. Hence the need for substitution.
1 Corinthians 15:3 states that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures. Supporting Paul’s focus on “sins”, the Old Testament supports the notion that one dies for their own sins (1 Kings 16:18-19). However, what if one could die for the sins of others? Gathercole argues that the Old Testament passage that is conceptually closest is that of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 (e.g. Isa 53:12). This is supported when we recognize that Romans 4:25 and Rom 8:32 allude to Isaiah 53 as well (see Isa 53:6).
In contrast with 1 Corinthians 15:3 and its dependence upon the Hebrew Scriptures, Gathercole argues that Romans 5:6-8 alludes to other heroic deaths from the literature and stories of his Greco-Roman cultural environment. In this chapter, Gathercole references classical works that depict one dying a heroic death on behalf of another. However, unlike these other deaths, Jesus’ is entirely unique, hence Paul’s statements in Romans 5:6-8!
After 29 chapters of Job debating with his three “friends”, the stalemate was broken by the appearance of young Elihu. The opinions of scholars are poles apart. Some recognize Elihu as an arrogant upstart who offered nothing new. Others compare him to John the Baptist, preparing the hearts of his hearers for Lord Himself. Which best describes Defending Substitution? As with Elihu, there will be a polarity of opinion. Either Gathercole achieves his thesis or he does not. Gathercole is to be praised for his characteristically careful and balanced argumentation. He presents a nuanced case and does not overstretch himself in this goal. While some will see Defending Substitution as unhelpful and unwelcome as Elihu, but in this reviewer’s humble opinion Gathercole is simply correct.
Satisfied, I leave behind Piper, Zahn, Wright, and Chalke to argue while I exit the bar, quietly whistling the melody of “in my place, condemned He stood”.
Many thanks to Baker Academic for providing a digital review copy. Their generosity did not affect my opinion of this book.
May 17, 2019
The big takeaway for pastors preaching substitutionary atonement is this: you have nothing to worry about. You may hear about the battle over Pauline theology and the danger of losing substitution, and you may worry you don’t have the tools to defend it against the onslaught of the towering learned, but here is one of those learned and towering intellectuals defending what you teach from behind the pulpit. And would you like to know how he does it? His strategy? His interpretation? *Exactly the same as yours.* He goes to 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 and interprets it *exactly* the same way you do. He goes to Romans 5 and interprets it *exactly* the same way you do (albeit also citing a bunch of examples of ancient Greeks basically saying, “Yeah, one would scarcely die for a another. Maybe for a good person, but man, dying for another is no small thing”). So all that to say: wipe the sweat from your forehead and get back to your study. Your bible means what it sounds like it means.
September 22, 2015
Summary: Gathercole defends the oft-maligned doctrine of substitutionary atonement, responding to the criticisms and challenges raised and demonstrating from key biblical texts that it can be argued from scripture that "Christ died in our place."
The idea of "substitution", that Christ died in our place, for our sins has come in for criticism from many quarters. Some claim this amounts to "divine child abuse." Others argue that substitution has not necessarily been the church's understanding of how Christ's death on the cross atoned for human sinfulness. In this brief "essay", Simon Gathercole engages this criticism and gives a modest but important argument for the biblical foundations of the idea of substitution.
First of all he contends that substitution is important both for our theological grasp of the gospel, the message of Christ and also pastorally vital in providing Christians assurance of their pardon before and acceptance by God. He defines substitution as "Christ's death in our place, instead of us." and sets this apart from other views such as representation and satisfaction. He also defends this idea against various criticisms, particularly that this is immoral by arguing that this was fully an act of Jesus own will, out of love for us, and not forced upon him.
Then he engages three exegetical challenges to substitution. The first is that of Harmut Gese proposing the atonement occurring through "representative place taking." The second is Morna Hooker's idea of "interchange" in which Christ becomes what we are so that we become what he is. The third is J. Louis Martyn's idea of apocalyptic deliverance from Sin. In addressing this latter, he also provides textual evidence that Christ died not only for Sin but for the sins of people. In engaging each of these theories he shows what is of value in our understanding of the work of Christ, what is problematic or actually suggestive of substitution, and at the same time approaches these in such a way that substitution need not exclude other insights into the nature of Christ's death.
The latter part of the book is concerned with careful exegesis of two key texts, I Corinthians 15:3, and Romans 5:6-8. In the first, he argues for the substitutionary understanding of the idea that Christ died for us, and makes a compelling case that the scriptures according to which this is so include Isaiah 53, where the idea of the servant's death for Israel is, on the basis of his word study, very clear. In his study of Romans 5:6-8, he takes a very different approach in arguing that the idea of one who would scarcely die for a good man has parallels in the literature of Paul's day. He appeals to the tale of Alcestis, and also to Philonides, Epictetus, and Seneca for proposing similar "substitutionary" ideas.
In between these two chapters, he includes an excursus on the question of why, if Christ's death is indeed substitutionary, do Christians still die. His argument considers various senses of "death" and argues that while we die, we do not perish.
In concluding, he argues for the continuing importance of substitution and that this idea, along with representation, and liberation might be understood as part of Paul's thought. Perhaps the most winsome aspect of the "defense" he makes is that it is an argument for the "inclusion" of substitution rather than for the "exclusion" of other ideas.
This is a short book, only 128 pages with bibliography and indices. The reason for this is that it is more or less a transcript of Gathercole's Hayward Lectures at Arcadia University. This concise and readable account, while not covering with the depth some might want all the texts and theories of the atonement, serves as a theological resource for adult education in a variety of contexts, both lay and seminary, around this important Christian doctrine. Above all, it graciously argues why substitution matters, how it may be defended, and pastorally, how important these truths are to proper Christian confidence.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
The idea of "substitution", that Christ died in our place, for our sins has come in for criticism from many quarters. Some claim this amounts to "divine child abuse." Others argue that substitution has not necessarily been the church's understanding of how Christ's death on the cross atoned for human sinfulness. In this brief "essay", Simon Gathercole engages this criticism and gives a modest but important argument for the biblical foundations of the idea of substitution.
First of all he contends that substitution is important both for our theological grasp of the gospel, the message of Christ and also pastorally vital in providing Christians assurance of their pardon before and acceptance by God. He defines substitution as "Christ's death in our place, instead of us." and sets this apart from other views such as representation and satisfaction. He also defends this idea against various criticisms, particularly that this is immoral by arguing that this was fully an act of Jesus own will, out of love for us, and not forced upon him.
Then he engages three exegetical challenges to substitution. The first is that of Harmut Gese proposing the atonement occurring through "representative place taking." The second is Morna Hooker's idea of "interchange" in which Christ becomes what we are so that we become what he is. The third is J. Louis Martyn's idea of apocalyptic deliverance from Sin. In addressing this latter, he also provides textual evidence that Christ died not only for Sin but for the sins of people. In engaging each of these theories he shows what is of value in our understanding of the work of Christ, what is problematic or actually suggestive of substitution, and at the same time approaches these in such a way that substitution need not exclude other insights into the nature of Christ's death.
The latter part of the book is concerned with careful exegesis of two key texts, I Corinthians 15:3, and Romans 5:6-8. In the first, he argues for the substitutionary understanding of the idea that Christ died for us, and makes a compelling case that the scriptures according to which this is so include Isaiah 53, where the idea of the servant's death for Israel is, on the basis of his word study, very clear. In his study of Romans 5:6-8, he takes a very different approach in arguing that the idea of one who would scarcely die for a good man has parallels in the literature of Paul's day. He appeals to the tale of Alcestis, and also to Philonides, Epictetus, and Seneca for proposing similar "substitutionary" ideas.
In between these two chapters, he includes an excursus on the question of why, if Christ's death is indeed substitutionary, do Christians still die. His argument considers various senses of "death" and argues that while we die, we do not perish.
In concluding, he argues for the continuing importance of substitution and that this idea, along with representation, and liberation might be understood as part of Paul's thought. Perhaps the most winsome aspect of the "defense" he makes is that it is an argument for the "inclusion" of substitution rather than for the "exclusion" of other ideas.
This is a short book, only 128 pages with bibliography and indices. The reason for this is that it is more or less a transcript of Gathercole's Hayward Lectures at Arcadia University. This concise and readable account, while not covering with the depth some might want all the texts and theories of the atonement, serves as a theological resource for adult education in a variety of contexts, both lay and seminary, around this important Christian doctrine. Above all, it graciously argues why substitution matters, how it may be defended, and pastorally, how important these truths are to proper Christian confidence.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
March 31, 2023
A lecture on the succinct defence of the doctrine of substitution, or substitutionary atonement (i.e., Christ on the cross was our substitute). Gathercole first begins by delineating the precise sense of "substitution" that he is defending, which is "Christ in our place," distinct from the notion of participation, penalty, representation, and propitiation. It is not that all these elements are not present in the doctrine of the cross/work of Christ, but that Gathercole wants to be acute and precise with the sense and definition of "substitution" that he is defending so that he is actually defending it. Another reason is that the opponents of substitution usually define the work of the cross as purely the above senses, either participation or representation so that they can empty the cross of any sense of substitution.
Gathercole begins by briefly delineating various sorts of challenges mounted against the substitution doctrine: moral, philosophical, logical, and exegetical. Of the first three challenges, Gathercole briefly addresses them and posits that it is the exegetical challenge against the notion of substitution that he tackles in his succinct defence.
Following this, Gathercole presents three prominent exegetical positions against the substitution doctrine: 1) the Tubingen view (evidently associated with the prestigious Tübingen University and German higher criticism), which leverages on their exegesis of Leviticus 4-5 to delineate that the work of Christ on the cross is merely a "representation," not taking away the sins of the sinners per se (exclusive place-taking), but coming alongside the sinners to participate in the judgment of death (inclusive place-taking); 2) the Interchange view, popularized by the late Oxford NT scholar Morna Hooker, which from the exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 8:9 postulate that the work of Christ is mainly "participation," Christ participating into the sinners' death and the sinners participating into Christ's resurrection; and 3) the Apocalyptic deliverance view, popularized by another distinguished NT scholar, J. Louis Martyn, which is most similar to the "Christus Victor" or ransom view of atonement, that presents the cross of Christ has defeating the power of sin and death that held humanity in ransom (for Martyn, from the enslaving power of the Law as well).
Gathercole is quick to admit that all these senses can be present in the multifaceted work of Christ's cross, but the problem lies with making one of these senses the all-encompassing view of the cross, therefore ignoring the exegetical-theological material of Paul's corpus that speak saliently of the substitutionary aspect. At the same time, these views all suffer from a similar weakness in varying degrees—they tend to downplay the guilt of individual "sins," and only highlight the sense of "sin" as an enslaving power or death as a domineering force, and that Christ, rightly so, needs to participate or represent with us, or the need to liberate us from these enslaving powers, yet all these senses fail to communicate the sense that Christ Himself have to bear the wrath for all the multitude of all our sins, which in my personal theological stance, is the crucial means to any sense of liberating or overcoming the cosmic forces of sin, evil, and death.
Finally, Gathercole mounts his defence for the doctrine of substitution through two passages: 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8. With 1 Corinthians 15:3, he identifies Paul's intended allusion to Isaiah 53, the preeminent Old Testament text of substitutionary death, through the close observation of the similarities between the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. With Romans 5:6-8, Gathercole surveys the literature of Greek Classical eras to demonstrate that Paul probably knew of "substitution myths" in the classical traditions, and alluded to them when he states "For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die (v6-7)," and therefore by implication, substitutionary death must also be present in Paul's mind when he proclaims in v8 that "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
This is a really succinct, precise, and straightforward defence for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. At the same time, Gathercole's defence is not unnecessarily dichotomizing, as he concedes that the other views may be valid notions in the multifaceted cross/work of Christ as well, but he convincingly postulates that the substitutionary atonement is also an essential aspect of the cross/work of Christ for sinners., without which there is no guarantee of absolute and sure forgiveness via the grace of God for us.
Gathercole begins by briefly delineating various sorts of challenges mounted against the substitution doctrine: moral, philosophical, logical, and exegetical. Of the first three challenges, Gathercole briefly addresses them and posits that it is the exegetical challenge against the notion of substitution that he tackles in his succinct defence.
Following this, Gathercole presents three prominent exegetical positions against the substitution doctrine: 1) the Tubingen view (evidently associated with the prestigious Tübingen University and German higher criticism), which leverages on their exegesis of Leviticus 4-5 to delineate that the work of Christ on the cross is merely a "representation," not taking away the sins of the sinners per se (exclusive place-taking), but coming alongside the sinners to participate in the judgment of death (inclusive place-taking); 2) the Interchange view, popularized by the late Oxford NT scholar Morna Hooker, which from the exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 8:9 postulate that the work of Christ is mainly "participation," Christ participating into the sinners' death and the sinners participating into Christ's resurrection; and 3) the Apocalyptic deliverance view, popularized by another distinguished NT scholar, J. Louis Martyn, which is most similar to the "Christus Victor" or ransom view of atonement, that presents the cross of Christ has defeating the power of sin and death that held humanity in ransom (for Martyn, from the enslaving power of the Law as well).
Gathercole is quick to admit that all these senses can be present in the multifaceted work of Christ's cross, but the problem lies with making one of these senses the all-encompassing view of the cross, therefore ignoring the exegetical-theological material of Paul's corpus that speak saliently of the substitutionary aspect. At the same time, these views all suffer from a similar weakness in varying degrees—they tend to downplay the guilt of individual "sins," and only highlight the sense of "sin" as an enslaving power or death as a domineering force, and that Christ, rightly so, needs to participate or represent with us, or the need to liberate us from these enslaving powers, yet all these senses fail to communicate the sense that Christ Himself have to bear the wrath for all the multitude of all our sins, which in my personal theological stance, is the crucial means to any sense of liberating or overcoming the cosmic forces of sin, evil, and death.
Finally, Gathercole mounts his defence for the doctrine of substitution through two passages: 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8. With 1 Corinthians 15:3, he identifies Paul's intended allusion to Isaiah 53, the preeminent Old Testament text of substitutionary death, through the close observation of the similarities between the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. With Romans 5:6-8, Gathercole surveys the literature of Greek Classical eras to demonstrate that Paul probably knew of "substitution myths" in the classical traditions, and alluded to them when he states "For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die (v6-7)," and therefore by implication, substitutionary death must also be present in Paul's mind when he proclaims in v8 that "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
This is a really succinct, precise, and straightforward defence for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. At the same time, Gathercole's defence is not unnecessarily dichotomizing, as he concedes that the other views may be valid notions in the multifaceted cross/work of Christ as well, but he convincingly postulates that the substitutionary atonement is also an essential aspect of the cross/work of Christ for sinners., without which there is no guarantee of absolute and sure forgiveness via the grace of God for us.
September 22, 2024
Very good. Gathercole's volume is concise and has a modest goal—to show that substitution plays a role in Paul's theology of the death of Christ. The book contains three main chapters. The first highlight some voices that are critical of substitution in Paul. Gathercole here notes that their alternative theories do not adequately account for sins, plural, in Paul's letters. Chapters 2 and 3 then look at two passages in Paul (1 Cor 15:3 and Rom 5:6–8). The third chapter, on Romans 5, was particularly helpful to me in seeing what Paul may have meant by referring to those who may have dared to die for a good person.
Gathercole makes a strong argument for substitution based on his exegesis of the two passages. I'd venture to say that even those who are already convinced on this point will enjoy the exegetical discussions.
Gathercole makes a strong argument for substitution based on his exegesis of the two passages. I'd venture to say that even those who are already convinced on this point will enjoy the exegetical discussions.
June 3, 2020
Very helpful short study on atonement in Paul. Really helpful synthesis, and makes some excellent connections I'd not seen elsewhere in the literature.
June 15, 2015
A cardinal Christian tenet is the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. But it is right to say that He was the substitute of His people? This brief essay from Gathercole addresses the role of substitution in the Pauline corpus and defends its appropriateness as a fundamental way of understanding the death of Jesus. While the scope of Gathercole’s work is limited by design, the lack of additional exegesis and explication stifles the overall effort.
September 11, 2016
Thorough & thought-provoking... I wish Gathercole would have provided a more compelling definition of what non-penal substitution might look like.
December 20, 2024
Having just finished Andrew Rillera's "Lamb of the Free," I came to "Defending Substitution" eager to hear a different perspective on the saving significance of Jesus' death. Along with Gathercole I am not inclined to put much stock in theological or philosophical objections to Jesus' death-as-substitute. Rather, as Gathercole rightly mentions, the exegetical realm is where this issue is to be decided (or at least argued). My main hangup with Gathercole's analysis is what appears to be a repeated confusion, or inconsistency, on his part as to whether "for" in "Jesus died for sins/us" is equivalent to "in place of" (i.e., substitution) or "because of/for the sake of" (i.e., consequence/benefactive). He clearly prefers "in place of" for the passages he addresses (1 Cor 15 & Rom 5), yet at points he admits the legitimacy of reading "because of/for the sake of" (p. 43n30, ebook). Acknowledging the ambiguity of "for" (υπερ) in certain contexts, he ultimately argues in favor of "in place of" because of a plurality of participants: for Gathercole, "[t]he substitutionary meaning" of the phrase "died for our sins" in 1 Cor 15:3 "arises out of the unusual language of one person dying for the sins of others" (p. 41). If the idea of one person (X) dying for another (Y) in 1 Cor 15:3 demands substitutionary reading only on the basis that X and Y are two different participants, it is curious that Gathercole does not read Deut 24:16, which includes two different participants within the "X dies for [sins of] Y" pattern, as substitutionary. In fact, he grants that both a substitutionary and consequential sense are valid options (p. 43n30). It is not clear then why the similar formulas of Deut 24:16 and in 1 Cor 15:3 — "X dies for [sins of] Y" — are not read the same way. If the mere presence of two different participants favors a substitutional reading (as Gathercole argues for 1 Cor 15:3), then Deut 24:16, which features two different participants (e.g., "father" and "children") must also be read substitutionally (which makes little sense). Or perhaps 1 Cor 15:3 must be read as consequence/benefaction (as Gathercole permits for Deut 24:16). On the whole, I appreciated Gathercole's clarity of style and thought; this book was an enjoyable read. However, I find myself not quite satisfied with his analysis and conclusions.
December 30, 2024
Short but captivating essay on atonement in Paul. His aim is to demonstrate exegetically that, for all the atonement theories that may be said to be truly Pauline, the concept of substitution is surely one of them. Dr. Gathercole helpfully defines “substitution” simply as “Christ death on our place, instead of us” (pg. 15).
The best part of the essay was his analysis of three alternative atonement theories, which he considered to be the strongest competitors to substitution. They’re “competitors” to substitution, not because he believes certain elements of the theories are incompatible with substitution, but because the theories themselves are either anti-substitutionary or non-substitutionary. The three views are the following: representative, interchange, and apocalyptic deliverance. The three positions share in common either a rejection or minimizing of substitution. There’s also in each view a downplaying of “sins” (plural) in favor of “Sin” (perceived as cosmic force to which human beings are enslaved). Representation—Jesus, rather than dying in the place of sinners, identifies with sinners in his death and resurrection, so that sinners are (with Christ) carried through the judgement of death unto resurrection and reconciliation with God. Interchange—Jesus (again, does not die in the place of sinners), but condescends to sinners—becoming what they are that they may become what he is. (There’s a ton of nuance to this view, which I can’t give justice to at the moment). And finally apocalyptic deliverance—Jesus death addresses not so much sins (“individual infractions of the divine will”) but Sin. Atonement is conceived fundamentally as rescue or deliverance with a major emphasis on Gal. 1:4.
Gathercole does an excellent job at identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each viewpoint, while emphasizing substitution as integral to Paul’s soteriology. I would happily recommend this one, especially to those interested in Pauline studies, soteriology, and atonement in particular.
The best part of the essay was his analysis of three alternative atonement theories, which he considered to be the strongest competitors to substitution. They’re “competitors” to substitution, not because he believes certain elements of the theories are incompatible with substitution, but because the theories themselves are either anti-substitutionary or non-substitutionary. The three views are the following: representative, interchange, and apocalyptic deliverance. The three positions share in common either a rejection or minimizing of substitution. There’s also in each view a downplaying of “sins” (plural) in favor of “Sin” (perceived as cosmic force to which human beings are enslaved). Representation—Jesus, rather than dying in the place of sinners, identifies with sinners in his death and resurrection, so that sinners are (with Christ) carried through the judgement of death unto resurrection and reconciliation with God. Interchange—Jesus (again, does not die in the place of sinners), but condescends to sinners—becoming what they are that they may become what he is. (There’s a ton of nuance to this view, which I can’t give justice to at the moment). And finally apocalyptic deliverance—Jesus death addresses not so much sins (“individual infractions of the divine will”) but Sin. Atonement is conceived fundamentally as rescue or deliverance with a major emphasis on Gal. 1:4.
Gathercole does an excellent job at identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each viewpoint, while emphasizing substitution as integral to Paul’s soteriology. I would happily recommend this one, especially to those interested in Pauline studies, soteriology, and atonement in particular.
May 18, 2015
In recent years the idea of substitutionary atonement is often attacked. Substitution is the hallmark of classic Protestant thinking about the way Christ's cross saves us from our sins; however many are questioning whether the language of substitution does adequate justice to Christ's cross and biblical theology. In Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul, Simon Gathercole surveys the contemporary discussion on substitution and its merits, the strongest exegetical challenges to the doctrine, and examines two key texts from the Pauline literature that explore the nature of substitution in Paul's thought (1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8). Gathercole is not attempting to eradicate the insights of substitution's critics. He merely seeks to demonstrate that the language of identifying, representation and apocalyptic views of Christ's atonement do not do full justice to the totality of the atonement or Paul’s theology of the cross. Gathercole is bringing the notion of substitution back to the table so we can see a richer picture of Chris't work.
This book originated as an SBL paper in 2006 which underwent revision as Gathercole presented the material as a academic lecture series at three different institutions (Concorida, Biola and Acadia). Published here as part of the Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology series (ed by Craig Evans and Lee Martin McDonald), it still maintains the accessibility necessary for a public lecture format (10). Gathercole, here, is as brief as he is suggestive of the ways substitution rounds out our contemporary understanding of the atonement.
After an introduction, Gathercole's argument unfolds in three chapters, a brief excursus and a conclusion. In his introduction, Gathercole describes the importance of substitution for both Christian doctrine and pastoral care (14). He defines substitutionary atonement as 'Christ's death in our place, instead of us' (15). While substitution is associated with penal models, Gathercole untangles this, claiming, "Substitution is logically distinguishable from related concepts such as penalty, representation, expiation and propitiation" (18). He t sharpens the idea of substitution by profiling the distinctions between substitution and penalty (18-20), representation (20), propitiation (21-2) and satisfaction (22-3). This helps set limits on what Gathercole’s claims in this essay. It is conceptually possible to speak of punishment, representation, divine appeasement and satisfaction apart from the idea of substitution. Substitution does not necessarily entail all (or any) of these other ideas. Gathercole closes his introduction with a survey of various contemporary criticisms of subsititutionary atonement (i.e. that it is a legal fiction, an immoral doctrine, its rejection on philosophical and logical grounds).
In chapter one, Gathercole turns to what he feels are three strongest antisubstitutionary exegetical cases for the atonement. He profiles the Tübingen understanding of representative 'place-taking,' Morna Hooker's Interchange, and apocalyptic deliverance. The Tübingen school (building on the work of Gese and Hofius) describes Christ's death through the lens of the Day of Atonement rituals (Lev. 4-5, 16). In the sacrifice of the bull and the goat, the priest and the people were invited to identify in the sacrifice through the laying on of hands. In a similar way we are set free by identifying with Christ in his sacrifice (36-7). Hooker's interchange emphasizes our union to and participation with Christ in his death (41). The apocalyptic view focuses on how Christ's death sets us free from the powers (46). Gathercole praises each of these approaches for the way they handle some biblical texts and describe aspects of the atonement; however, he also observes where each fails to do justice to everything that Paul says on the atonement. One area that he critiques all of these approaches is in their failure to grapple with how Christ saves from our 'sins' (individual infractions) and not just our 'Sin' (our condition).
Chapter two and three provide the exegetical case for where Gathercole sees the language of substitution in Paul. Chapter two focuses on 1 Corinthians 15:3, "Christ died for our Sins according to the Scriptures." Chapter three explores the vicarious death of Christ as described in Romans 5:6-8, "For although we were weak, yet at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might dare to die. But God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Between these chapters is a brief excursus on why if Jesus died in our stead, we still die. Gathercole argues convincingly that 1 Cor 15:3 builds on the notion of substitution with Isaiah 53 in the background whereas Romans 5 describes vicarious atonement with Roman and Greek parallels in the background.
Gathercole isn't out to debunk contemporary discussions of how we participate in Christ's death and his atoning sacrifice. He has no bone to pick with idenitfication, representation or Christus Victor undderstandings of the atonement. What this essay highlights is the way these, in various ways, fail to describe all that happens in the atonement (and even all that Paul has to say about it). Nor is Gathercole foisting on us an either/or understanding where we ought to see the atonement as substitutionary only. Rather he helps us see a fuller picture of the atonement where in a very real way, Christ died so we don't have to. This book helps illustrate the richness of God's work in Christ. Personally I found it helpful because while I appreciate some of the developments in atonement theology, I've found the blanket criticisms of all things substitutionary puzzling. Another insight I gained from the way Gathercole profiles the alternative views, is he shows how a totalizing vision of the atonement determined what a passage is allowed to say. When our conceptual framework is too rigid we fail to see the full richness of what is described in Paul’s theology (or other writers). Gathercole has a fuller atonement theology because he allows for the diversity in the meaning of Paul’s material. I give this book four stars.
Notice of material connection: I received this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
This book originated as an SBL paper in 2006 which underwent revision as Gathercole presented the material as a academic lecture series at three different institutions (Concorida, Biola and Acadia). Published here as part of the Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology series (ed by Craig Evans and Lee Martin McDonald), it still maintains the accessibility necessary for a public lecture format (10). Gathercole, here, is as brief as he is suggestive of the ways substitution rounds out our contemporary understanding of the atonement.
After an introduction, Gathercole's argument unfolds in three chapters, a brief excursus and a conclusion. In his introduction, Gathercole describes the importance of substitution for both Christian doctrine and pastoral care (14). He defines substitutionary atonement as 'Christ's death in our place, instead of us' (15). While substitution is associated with penal models, Gathercole untangles this, claiming, "Substitution is logically distinguishable from related concepts such as penalty, representation, expiation and propitiation" (18). He t sharpens the idea of substitution by profiling the distinctions between substitution and penalty (18-20), representation (20), propitiation (21-2) and satisfaction (22-3). This helps set limits on what Gathercole’s claims in this essay. It is conceptually possible to speak of punishment, representation, divine appeasement and satisfaction apart from the idea of substitution. Substitution does not necessarily entail all (or any) of these other ideas. Gathercole closes his introduction with a survey of various contemporary criticisms of subsititutionary atonement (i.e. that it is a legal fiction, an immoral doctrine, its rejection on philosophical and logical grounds).
In chapter one, Gathercole turns to what he feels are three strongest antisubstitutionary exegetical cases for the atonement. He profiles the Tübingen understanding of representative 'place-taking,' Morna Hooker's Interchange, and apocalyptic deliverance. The Tübingen school (building on the work of Gese and Hofius) describes Christ's death through the lens of the Day of Atonement rituals (Lev. 4-5, 16). In the sacrifice of the bull and the goat, the priest and the people were invited to identify in the sacrifice through the laying on of hands. In a similar way we are set free by identifying with Christ in his sacrifice (36-7). Hooker's interchange emphasizes our union to and participation with Christ in his death (41). The apocalyptic view focuses on how Christ's death sets us free from the powers (46). Gathercole praises each of these approaches for the way they handle some biblical texts and describe aspects of the atonement; however, he also observes where each fails to do justice to everything that Paul says on the atonement. One area that he critiques all of these approaches is in their failure to grapple with how Christ saves from our 'sins' (individual infractions) and not just our 'Sin' (our condition).
Chapter two and three provide the exegetical case for where Gathercole sees the language of substitution in Paul. Chapter two focuses on 1 Corinthians 15:3, "Christ died for our Sins according to the Scriptures." Chapter three explores the vicarious death of Christ as described in Romans 5:6-8, "For although we were weak, yet at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might dare to die. But God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Between these chapters is a brief excursus on why if Jesus died in our stead, we still die. Gathercole argues convincingly that 1 Cor 15:3 builds on the notion of substitution with Isaiah 53 in the background whereas Romans 5 describes vicarious atonement with Roman and Greek parallels in the background.
Gathercole isn't out to debunk contemporary discussions of how we participate in Christ's death and his atoning sacrifice. He has no bone to pick with idenitfication, representation or Christus Victor undderstandings of the atonement. What this essay highlights is the way these, in various ways, fail to describe all that happens in the atonement (and even all that Paul has to say about it). Nor is Gathercole foisting on us an either/or understanding where we ought to see the atonement as substitutionary only. Rather he helps us see a fuller picture of the atonement where in a very real way, Christ died so we don't have to. This book helps illustrate the richness of God's work in Christ. Personally I found it helpful because while I appreciate some of the developments in atonement theology, I've found the blanket criticisms of all things substitutionary puzzling. Another insight I gained from the way Gathercole profiles the alternative views, is he shows how a totalizing vision of the atonement determined what a passage is allowed to say. When our conceptual framework is too rigid we fail to see the full richness of what is described in Paul’s theology (or other writers). Gathercole has a fuller atonement theology because he allows for the diversity in the meaning of Paul’s material. I give this book four stars.
Notice of material connection: I received this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
May 1, 2024
This very short book is actually an edited collection of lectures on substitutionary atonement. Because it's both short, and a collection of focused lectures, the book has its limitations. Gathercole's focus is quite limited - he is not offering a full exegesis of the texts involved, nor is he offering a theory of atonement - he is, instead, only using two passages in Paul's letters to defend the view that Paul believed that Jesus was a substitute for sinners and that he died in their place, for their sins. In this, Gathercole does a very good job of demonstrating that substitution was a part of Paul's understanding. There are still open questions about how he handles Rom 5 (recently, Rillera has challenged Gathercole's methodology on that passage), so I have some thinking to do in that regard, but on the whole, I've long believed in the vicarious and substitutionary death of Jesus on our behalf, and Gathercole offers a careful and compelling assessment of two passages that help to establish that fact.
January 2, 2023
Gathercole's short essays are excellent studies on substitution in Paul and two particular passages in particular. He first demonstrates that anti-substitutionary readings of Paul do not do justice to the material. Next, he exegetes superbly sections of 1 Cor. 15 and Rom. 5 to demonstrate that substitution is clearly present in both passages. If anything, this book left me desiring a full-fledged discussion of substitution (specifically penal) in Paul. Gathercole has started the conversation, but it is one that could be explored much more. I do wish he had also done more to explore how substitution and participation may be integrated. He claims that they can be, but merely points in certain directions. Still a phenomenal little book.
April 10, 2018
This is a good defense of substitution as an important aspect of the atonement. Gathercole does not get into specific interpretations of substitution (e.g., penal substitution) but rather remains focused on just the concept of substitution itself. He argues that theories trying to do away with a substitutionary aspect of the atonement fall short in their exegesis. He analyzes two passages in depth, 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8, to show in the first case how Pauline substitutionary theory clearly relates to the rest of Scriptures and in the second case how Pauline usage clearly reflects classical ideas of substitutionary death.
April 29, 2020
At a time when even evangelicals are drifting from, subtlety downplaying, or outright denying penal substitutionary atonement, this little book (128 pages) is a welcome introduction to defending and explaining this essential doctrine. Highly recommended for anyone studying penal substitutionary atonement in light of Isaiah 53, 1Corinthians 15:3-5, and Romans 5:6-8.
October 19, 2024
Clearly written with a good organisation of ideas and a convincing selection of historical and academic sources.
March 8, 2025
Interesting read
This book gave some interesting cultural and historical information that helps to place this principle in the proper context.
Short but enjoyable read
This book gave some interesting cultural and historical information that helps to place this principle in the proper context.
Short but enjoyable read
August 2, 2015
As Christians, we believe that the death of Jesus on the cross accomplished something, namely dealing with the sin and death problem that has faced all of humanity since Adam’s fall in the Garden. With that said, what exactly was accomplished, for whom, when, and how it all plays out has been a source of debate among biblical scholars. Some aver substitutionary atonement while others support a more representative approach to Christ’s sacrifice. Professor Simon Gathercole in his helpful book Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul unpacks a difficult theological subject in an effort to demonstrate the validity from a biblical perspective of substitutionary atonement.
The focus of this book is not to provide an in-depth or exhaustive discussion of this topic not to interact with every single argument present over the years in favor of or in opposition to substitutionary atonement. Conversely, the purpose is to provide a definition of substitutionary atonement, to show its importance in particular in two key Pauline passages, to interact with some representative criticisms and alternative viewpoints, with again the underlying purpose being to show that substitutionary atonement is an essential and vital element for grasping what Christ did for us.
Gathercole provides valuable interaction with three specific alternative viewpoints to what Christ did, namely the Tubingen View, Hooker’s Interchange View, and finally the Apocalyptic Deliverance View. I found the discussion of these views to be quite valuable and Gathercole does a great job of noting their respective positions as well as their merits. It was interesting to note that portions of these views are valid; however as Gathercole aptly summarizes, "they adopt a particular view of the atonement in Paul, and this theory tends to take on the role of a dominant or all-encompassing explanation.” Those dominant explanations seem to focus on sin collectively while failing to interact with the reality that Paul does deal with specific sins in relation to the atonement.
Chapters 2 and 3 provide some excellent theological reading as Gathercole interacts with two key Pauline passages – 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8. He keys in on some specific portions of both passages that speak of Christ doing something for us. This is by definition an act of substitution, the action of one on behalf of another. The discussion provided by Gathercole on the examples from classical literature that reveal the concept of a friend willingly dying for another was quite interesting. What this discussion reveals is more than the fact that substitution was an act understood prior to and during the time of Paul. The real point of importance Gathercole drives home is the fact Christ did far more than what was demonstrated in classical literature. Unlike those examples, “Christ’s death creates a friendship where there had been enmity” meaning even though we showed ourselves not to be friends of God, even though we have failed our marriage vows, and even though we have rejected relationship with God, Christ dies for us. Such love was unknown in the classical literature examples, thus revealing the true nature of Christ’s sacrifice, one of love for those who were an enemy of God.
Written in an easy to read lecture style that is accessible to both scholars and laymen, this book is an important read. While Gathercole does not engage every minute detail of substitutionary atonement, that is not his intention. He set out to show that substitutionary atonement is indeed taught by Paul and forms an important element of the Pauline discussion on this topic. To some degree, substitutionary atonement can co-exist with representation and other perspectives; however, there can be no doubt that substitutionary atonement is aptly defended by Gathercole in this book and rightly so. I highly recommend this book as a valuable resource. It will prove to be a relatively quick read but it will also be a text the reader will refer to in future studies of substitutionary atonement.
I received this book for free I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
The focus of this book is not to provide an in-depth or exhaustive discussion of this topic not to interact with every single argument present over the years in favor of or in opposition to substitutionary atonement. Conversely, the purpose is to provide a definition of substitutionary atonement, to show its importance in particular in two key Pauline passages, to interact with some representative criticisms and alternative viewpoints, with again the underlying purpose being to show that substitutionary atonement is an essential and vital element for grasping what Christ did for us.
Gathercole provides valuable interaction with three specific alternative viewpoints to what Christ did, namely the Tubingen View, Hooker’s Interchange View, and finally the Apocalyptic Deliverance View. I found the discussion of these views to be quite valuable and Gathercole does a great job of noting their respective positions as well as their merits. It was interesting to note that portions of these views are valid; however as Gathercole aptly summarizes, "they adopt a particular view of the atonement in Paul, and this theory tends to take on the role of a dominant or all-encompassing explanation.” Those dominant explanations seem to focus on sin collectively while failing to interact with the reality that Paul does deal with specific sins in relation to the atonement.
Chapters 2 and 3 provide some excellent theological reading as Gathercole interacts with two key Pauline passages – 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8. He keys in on some specific portions of both passages that speak of Christ doing something for us. This is by definition an act of substitution, the action of one on behalf of another. The discussion provided by Gathercole on the examples from classical literature that reveal the concept of a friend willingly dying for another was quite interesting. What this discussion reveals is more than the fact that substitution was an act understood prior to and during the time of Paul. The real point of importance Gathercole drives home is the fact Christ did far more than what was demonstrated in classical literature. Unlike those examples, “Christ’s death creates a friendship where there had been enmity” meaning even though we showed ourselves not to be friends of God, even though we have failed our marriage vows, and even though we have rejected relationship with God, Christ dies for us. Such love was unknown in the classical literature examples, thus revealing the true nature of Christ’s sacrifice, one of love for those who were an enemy of God.
Written in an easy to read lecture style that is accessible to both scholars and laymen, this book is an important read. While Gathercole does not engage every minute detail of substitutionary atonement, that is not his intention. He set out to show that substitutionary atonement is indeed taught by Paul and forms an important element of the Pauline discussion on this topic. To some degree, substitutionary atonement can co-exist with representation and other perspectives; however, there can be no doubt that substitutionary atonement is aptly defended by Gathercole in this book and rightly so. I highly recommend this book as a valuable resource. It will prove to be a relatively quick read but it will also be a text the reader will refer to in future studies of substitutionary atonement.
I received this book for free I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
May 17, 2015
Кратка, много лека за четене, но добра книжка.
Трябва да призная, че не съм особено впечатлен от основната егзегетична аргументация в глави 2 и 3. Основното достойнство на книгата за мен се намира най-вече в нейната 1 глава където авторът много прецизно очертава контурите на въпроса за заместничеството в НЗ. Отивайки много отвъд автори като напр. Д. Стот (Кръстът на Христос) Гедъркол уточнява, че заместничеството по никакъв начин не е задължително свързано или включващо се себе си идеи като наказание, представителство, умилостивение или задоволяване. В съвременните спорове заместничеството обикновено почти автоматично се свързва с някои или с всички изброени по-горе понятия.Авторът обаче съвсем удачно) настоява, че нямаме основание да правим това - всяка идея трябва да бъде самостоятелно защитена и доказана егзегетически преди да имаме основание да я свързваме със наместническата роля на Христос.
На второ място Гедъркол добавя още нещо важно към темата. През последните години реакцията на противопоставяне между различните модели на изкупление определено намалява. Така например в момента е съвсем обичайно наказателното заместническо изкупление и Christus Victor да бъдат виждани не касто съперничещи си и взаимно изключващи се, а като допълващи се концепции, които спокойно могат да съществуват заедно. Гедъркол предлага нещо подобно по отношение на заместничеството и представителството. Не е необходимо да поставяме въпроса като или едното или другото. И двете са важни и реални идеи в Павловия корпус. Ако искаме да му отдадем дължимото ние трябва да намерим начин да включим и двете концепции в своето виждане за изкуплението. В тази връзка намирам анализът на Тюбингенската школа и на Морна Хукър за доста удачни (макар че не съм убеден, че критиката на Хукър е докрай основателна).
Като цяло оставам със смесени, но предимно добри впечатления от книгата - първата от този автор, която чета.
Трябва да призная, че не съм особено впечатлен от основната егзегетична аргументация в глави 2 и 3. Основното достойнство на книгата за мен се намира най-вече в нейната 1 глава където авторът много прецизно очертава контурите на въпроса за заместничеството в НЗ. Отивайки много отвъд автори като напр. Д. Стот (Кръстът на Христос) Гедъркол уточнява, че заместничеството по никакъв начин не е задължително свързано или включващо се себе си идеи като наказание, представителство, умилостивение или задоволяване. В съвременните спорове заместничеството обикновено почти автоматично се свързва с някои или с всички изброени по-горе понятия.Авторът обаче съвсем удачно) настоява, че нямаме основание да правим това - всяка идея трябва да бъде самостоятелно защитена и доказана егзегетически преди да имаме основание да я свързваме със наместническата роля на Христос.
На второ място Гедъркол добавя още нещо важно към темата. През последните години реакцията на противопоставяне между различните модели на изкупление определено намалява. Така например в момента е съвсем обичайно наказателното заместническо изкупление и Christus Victor да бъдат виждани не касто съперничещи си и взаимно изключващи се, а като допълващи се концепции, които спокойно могат да съществуват заедно. Гедъркол предлага нещо подобно по отношение на заместничеството и представителството. Не е необходимо да поставяме въпроса като или едното или другото. И двете са важни и реални идеи в Павловия корпус. Ако искаме да му отдадем дължимото ние трябва да намерим начин да включим и двете концепции в своето виждане за изкуплението. В тази връзка намирам анализът на Тюбингенската школа и на Морна Хукър за доста удачни (макар че не съм убеден, че критиката на Хукър е докрай основателна).
Като цяло оставам със смесени, но предимно добри впечатления от книгата - първата от този автор, която чета.
December 13, 2016
This brief but enlightening read was my first look at atonement theology, and while I do not agree with the authors view of what happened on the cross, I think that this was a brave attempt to argue for at least some role for penal substitution atonement theory.
I am one of those people who cannot agree with Christ's taking our sins upon himself in order to take God's wrath on our behalf because:
A) It stands at odds with God's loving nature, and as I don't accept the Incarnation, it comes across as the sacrifice of an innocent.
B) Even though God is God, wouldn't he need the willingness of those affected by the wrongs of others in order to transfer the penalty of their (the culpable others) sins to transfer punishment onto Christ.
Also, even if the Incarnation were true, it would be kind of hard to take because, as the atheist meme goes, God would sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself.
I have to say though that the author does consider positions like mine and push them aside as simply saying "I don't like penal substitution, so it is wrong", he then goes and argues for it while conceding that it might only be PART of what the atonement was about, and that the truth might in fact be a hybrid of substitution and representative atonement.
As for the author's argument that Paul's language when speaking of the atonement is unique when standing in contrast to the way sacrifice was written about in Christ's day, that may well be true, but it does not make it the correct theory of atonement.
This leaves me back where I was before: Participatory atonement is more in line with God's loving nature and Christ showed us the way be demonstrating how we can take our sins upon ourselves and turn our lives around into a more Christ-like way of living.
I am one of those people who cannot agree with Christ's taking our sins upon himself in order to take God's wrath on our behalf because:
A) It stands at odds with God's loving nature, and as I don't accept the Incarnation, it comes across as the sacrifice of an innocent.
B) Even though God is God, wouldn't he need the willingness of those affected by the wrongs of others in order to transfer the penalty of their (the culpable others) sins to transfer punishment onto Christ.
Also, even if the Incarnation were true, it would be kind of hard to take because, as the atheist meme goes, God would sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself.
I have to say though that the author does consider positions like mine and push them aside as simply saying "I don't like penal substitution, so it is wrong", he then goes and argues for it while conceding that it might only be PART of what the atonement was about, and that the truth might in fact be a hybrid of substitution and representative atonement.
As for the author's argument that Paul's language when speaking of the atonement is unique when standing in contrast to the way sacrifice was written about in Christ's day, that may well be true, but it does not make it the correct theory of atonement.
This leaves me back where I was before: Participatory atonement is more in line with God's loving nature and Christ showed us the way be demonstrating how we can take our sins upon ourselves and turn our lives around into a more Christ-like way of living.
October 3, 2016
Compelling short treatment on substitution—that is, the doctrine that Christ died on our behalf, in our place, INSTEAD of us. The principle that we die with Christ, with him as our representative is certainly present all over the New Testament. But there are a number of passages that clearly say that Christ did not simply die for sin (the general curse that hangs over humanity that he took upon himself and led us out of), but also for sins (plural, that is individual transgressions we have committed against God and which must be punished). This emphasis on sins (pl.) shows up in a number of key texts, 1 Cor 15:1-3 being probably the most important. There Paul says Jesus death for our sins is of first importance in the Gospel.
Gathercole has a number of helpful insights. One thing I wish he had addressed is the question of substitutionary atonement as a legal fiction (the Bible says it is injustice for the righteous to be condemned), so we should not celebrate an idea of the innocent Jesus being condemned for crimes he didn't commit. This is an issue he brings up in the introduction but never answers.
Gathercole has a number of helpful insights. One thing I wish he had addressed is the question of substitutionary atonement as a legal fiction (the Bible says it is injustice for the righteous to be condemned), so we should not celebrate an idea of the innocent Jesus being condemned for crimes he didn't commit. This is an issue he brings up in the introduction but never answers.
May 21, 2015
I expected more out of this. It was a fine book. Neither great nor terrible. He does show why the NT teaches substitution using two key passages. He also critiques some of the ways theologians deny substitution.This was the most helpful part for me and did show some of the flaws with non-penal substitution. But it seems at time that he qualifies things too much. There is also a distinct lack of passion and polemic. A book that didn't do much to stir my blood for the work of Christ. Maybe it is because the book is supposed to be scholarly. Whatever the case, the book is orthodox and solid, but not really that exciting. There are certainly better and more exciting defenses of substitution out there.
October 29, 2015
This is a persuasive little book, but its arguments are highly intellectual and I had trouble finding a practical take-away that would enrich my own spiritual journey. It is so short and esoteric, in fact, that I have trouble understanding why it is a book at all, and suspect that it might have been more efficient if the author had been forced to whittle it down into a couple of concise journal articles rather than padding out the literature review to make it into a book. Gathercole has persuaded me that substitution is important. What he hasn’t done is convinced me that I needed to read the book.
See my full review at http://wordsbecamebooks.com/2015/10/1...
See my full review at http://wordsbecamebooks.com/2015/10/1...
August 6, 2015
Good book but way too short to be useful in the long run. This topic merits a monograph.
April 2, 2017
Not so much a defense of substitution as a defense of substitution being Pauline. It does this well though, and it's a quick and easy read.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews