Why did Jesus die on the cross? This is possibly the most important of all questions to be clear about. You see if we are not sure why Jesus died on the cross then we are not clear about the gospel and if we can’t tell people why Jesus died on the cross we will be unable to share the gospel with them.
The traditional evangelical understanding is referred to as ‘penal substitution’. This teaches that Jesus died in our place taking the punishment for our sin. But this teaching has had many critics. For example in the book The Lost Message of Jesus Steve Chalke suggests that the traditional understanding of penal substitution teaches ‘a form of cosmic child abuse.’ Yet this is not the act of a bitter father on a cowering son, this is the Father and Son working together with love for the world; this is not an act of spite but one of perfect justice. J. I. Packer refers to Steve Chalke’s teaching at this point as being a ‘supremely silly . . . smartypants notion.’
Last night, in Café church, we looked at Exodus 12. This chapter records the night of the Passover. It is a passage that clearly anticipates the cross of Christ—each of the gospel writers emphasise that Jesus was crucified at Passover time and the Apostle Paul declares, Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Supposing someone had decided that they would not bother killing the lamb and applying its blood to their doorpost. What would have happened? Judgement would have come upon their home. This passage teaches a principle of substitution. A lamb dies and judgement passes over their house. Similarly, our Passover lamb died and God’s judgement passes over us. He died that we would not face God’s judgment. It is because of his shed blood, applied to our lives, that we are spared God’s wrath.
The traditional evangelical understanding is referred to as ‘penal substitution’. This teaches that Jesus died in our place taking the punishment for our sin. But this teaching has had many critics. For example in the book The Lost Message of Jesus Steve Chalke suggests that the traditional understanding of penal substitution teaches ‘a form of cosmic child abuse.’ Yet this is not the act of a bitter father on a cowering son, this is the Father and Son working together with love for the world; this is not an act of spite but one of perfect justice. J. I. Packer refers to Steve Chalke’s teaching at this point as being a ‘supremely silly . . . smartypants notion.’
Last night, in Café church, we looked at Exodus 12. This chapter records the night of the Passover. It is a passage that clearly anticipates the cross of Christ—each of the gospel writers emphasise that Jesus was crucified at Passover time and the Apostle Paul declares, Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Supposing someone had decided that they would not bother killing the lamb and applying its blood to their doorpost. What would have happened? Judgement would have come upon their home. This passage teaches a principle of substitution. A lamb dies and judgement passes over their house. Similarly, our Passover lamb died and God’s judgement passes over us. He died that we would not face God’s judgment. It is because of his shed blood, applied to our lives, that we are spared God’s wrath.
3 comments:
The point that Steve Chalke was trying to make is that Penal Substitution (PSA) is a caricature of what Substitutionary Atonement is about. He isn't denying that Jesus died in our place at all - he is saying that the way that PSA is used makes God look like a child abuser - it is a distortion of scripture and the character of God.
It is a shame that people such as Packer didn't take the time to read properly what Chalke wrote in the book.
Dear Ian
Thanks for your comment on the blog.
Is what you are saying is that Steve Chalke does not beleive in Penal Substitutionary Atonement but does beleive in Substitution? If this is so how does his theory of atonement differ from penal subsitution? For example does he believe that the Father is expressing his righteous judgement of humankind's sin? Also, what would you comment be on the following link http://adrianwarnock.com/2008/11/atonement-debate-steve-chalke-confirms.html ?
Dear Ian
Thanks for your comment on the blog.
Is what you are saying is that Steve Chalke does not beleive in Penal Substitutionary Atonement but does beleive in Substitution? If this is so how does his theory of atonement differ from penal subsitution? For example does he believe that the Father is expressing his righteous judgement of humankind's sin? Also, what would you comment be on the following link http://adrianwarnock.com/2008/11/atonement-debate-steve-chalke-confirms.html ?
Post a Comment