What do you think?
Who Killed the Son of God?: In Defense of Penal Substitution without Divine Murder
For additional reading on this topic that explores similar themes, see "The 'Gospel' of Divine Abuse" by Eitan Bar.Was the crucifixion the act by which God poured out his wrath on his Son or was it something else? Is God guilty of killing his innocent Son, or should the culpability for Jesus’ death be placed elsewhere? Does the atonement reveal an angry God who poured out his hatred, his fierce anger, on his Son? Does the Bible answer these questions? In this short book, we look at the reasons people have historically claimed that God deliberately poured out his wrath on Jesus at the cross, and also why others protest this idea. Just as importantly, we consider how our beliefs about this doctrine can make a great difference to the way we live as we walk with God. By observing how the first disciples talked about the crucifixion, by surveying sacrifice and wrath in the Old Testament, and by examining the Messianic prophecies pertaining to the cross, this book presents the argument that Jesus was indeed our atoning sacrifice for sins, but that he was murdered by a conspiracy of evildoers, not by his Father. Dr. Glenn R. Kreider is Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Eitan Bar is the media and evangelism leader at ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry and Israel College of the Bible.
- GenresChristianity
102 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 6, 2020
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
August 9, 2022
This book critiques views of the atonement that say that God killed Jesus or that God poured out his wrath on Jesus (disclosure: my views before and after reading is that we should probably avoid saying that God killed Jesus, and we should say God poured out his wrath on Jesus). I think the criticisms miss the mark on both fronts, and substantially so.
Generally, the authors missed obvious ways that proponents of the views they're critiquing could respond. They don't really seem to engage with at length defenses of alternative views. Several of their critiques are actually against views that even the people mentioned obviously wouldn't hold or could offer simple clarifying points to hold against the criticisms. Another way this book seems to not succeed is to actually meet the claim of the subtitle, which is a defense of penal substitution. There were some critiques they offer in which it is very unclear how one retains penal substitution at all if what they claim is correct, and therefore don't adequately distinguish between penal substitution and penal substitution + 'divine murder' views. For example, they say it is wrong for God to pour out his wrath on the innocent, it must be on the wicked (p. 51), and yet they don't even talk about how to make sense of an innocent substitutionary sacrifice, which is the whole point of penal substitutionary atonement and seems to have comparable issues.
I'll discuss one specific point the authors make as an example of the above. They quote roughly 20 Bible verses to support the point that humans killed Jesus, not God (pp. 30-32). It clearly isn't obvious how to attribute blame here, as there are three different groups mentioned, Pilate, Roman soldiers, and Jewish leaders. The dispute between Jewish and Roman blame here has been the subject of great debate (and worse), as there seem to be different levels of responsibility and interpretation of the events going on. So, mentioning God has killing Jesus is just a higher level interpretation as one that is further up the causal chain, so to speak, as we Christians should probably affirm that Jesus' crucifixion was not a fluke and that it was part of God's plan. The authors, however, seem to want to stick more closely to the text and affirm more in line with what the Scripture explicitly says. That's fine, I appreciate that. But then immediately after the list of Bible verses, all indicting humans, the authors blame Satan, not humans, for the execution of Jesus. This is humorously inconsistent with all the emphasis on *humans* killing Jesus and basing our use of language heavily on the text. In the end, I agree with the authors that we should probably avoid the language of saying that "God killed Jesus," as it is misleading and perhaps improper.
The authors are very opposed to saying that God caused the death of Jesus. The main target in sights of the authors appear to primarily be Calvinists like John Piper and John MacArthur (other quotes include broadly Reformed sources like The Gospel Coalition and David Platt). This fact is relevant because Calvinists are theological determinists, which usually includes affirming that God is the ultimate cause of everything, or that God determines everything. Therefore, God ultimately caused the death of Jesus, as well as every other event of history. Thus, this critique amounts to a critique of theological determinism, not "divine murder," as such. If theological determinism is correct, then it is accurate to say God ultimately caused Jesus' death. Further, the authors didn't get into the debate on the legitimacy of the doing/allowing distinction, which is quite relevant to their main point, which is that God only permitted Jesus' death, not killed him (directly, anyway).
In summary, I cannot recommend this book, as it is not a good critique of the views it criticizes, nor does it adequately defend its own view that appears to be subject to a subset of the some challenges that the "divine murder" views would be.
Generally, the authors missed obvious ways that proponents of the views they're critiquing could respond. They don't really seem to engage with at length defenses of alternative views. Several of their critiques are actually against views that even the people mentioned obviously wouldn't hold or could offer simple clarifying points to hold against the criticisms. Another way this book seems to not succeed is to actually meet the claim of the subtitle, which is a defense of penal substitution. There were some critiques they offer in which it is very unclear how one retains penal substitution at all if what they claim is correct, and therefore don't adequately distinguish between penal substitution and penal substitution + 'divine murder' views. For example, they say it is wrong for God to pour out his wrath on the innocent, it must be on the wicked (p. 51), and yet they don't even talk about how to make sense of an innocent substitutionary sacrifice, which is the whole point of penal substitutionary atonement and seems to have comparable issues.
I'll discuss one specific point the authors make as an example of the above. They quote roughly 20 Bible verses to support the point that humans killed Jesus, not God (pp. 30-32). It clearly isn't obvious how to attribute blame here, as there are three different groups mentioned, Pilate, Roman soldiers, and Jewish leaders. The dispute between Jewish and Roman blame here has been the subject of great debate (and worse), as there seem to be different levels of responsibility and interpretation of the events going on. So, mentioning God has killing Jesus is just a higher level interpretation as one that is further up the causal chain, so to speak, as we Christians should probably affirm that Jesus' crucifixion was not a fluke and that it was part of God's plan. The authors, however, seem to want to stick more closely to the text and affirm more in line with what the Scripture explicitly says. That's fine, I appreciate that. But then immediately after the list of Bible verses, all indicting humans, the authors blame Satan, not humans, for the execution of Jesus. This is humorously inconsistent with all the emphasis on *humans* killing Jesus and basing our use of language heavily on the text. In the end, I agree with the authors that we should probably avoid the language of saying that "God killed Jesus," as it is misleading and perhaps improper.
The authors are very opposed to saying that God caused the death of Jesus. The main target in sights of the authors appear to primarily be Calvinists like John Piper and John MacArthur (other quotes include broadly Reformed sources like The Gospel Coalition and David Platt). This fact is relevant because Calvinists are theological determinists, which usually includes affirming that God is the ultimate cause of everything, or that God determines everything. Therefore, God ultimately caused the death of Jesus, as well as every other event of history. Thus, this critique amounts to a critique of theological determinism, not "divine murder," as such. If theological determinism is correct, then it is accurate to say God ultimately caused Jesus' death. Further, the authors didn't get into the debate on the legitimacy of the doing/allowing distinction, which is quite relevant to their main point, which is that God only permitted Jesus' death, not killed him (directly, anyway).
In summary, I cannot recommend this book, as it is not a good critique of the views it criticizes, nor does it adequately defend its own view that appears to be subject to a subset of the some challenges that the "divine murder" views would be.
December 9, 2020
Awesome!
If you are considering to purchase this book, do it! This book sheds light on a misconception and used the bible to clearly refute that misconception. I would recommend this book to anyone. The authors' did a wonderful job and I read this book in one sitting, something I rarely do.
If you are considering to purchase this book, do it! This book sheds light on a misconception and used the bible to clearly refute that misconception. I would recommend this book to anyone. The authors' did a wonderful job and I read this book in one sitting, something I rarely do.
July 23, 2022
Excellent read
This book provide other and fresh perspective of God's love. I enjoyed reading it, I will read it again. It is very rare to read or learn something completely new from the scripture. I recommend that you do read this book. I thank God for the authors.
This book provide other and fresh perspective of God's love. I enjoyed reading it, I will read it again. It is very rare to read or learn something completely new from the scripture. I recommend that you do read this book. I thank God for the authors.
July 12, 2020
I loved this book it explains answers to questions I have ask an prayed for, Thank You, Stevie Dotson
June 14, 2022
Interesting!
Liked that this read offered an in-depth perspective. It is definitely a perspective that I had not considered. It was a good listening.
Liked that this read offered an in-depth perspective. It is definitely a perspective that I had not considered. It was a good listening.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews