Holmes emphasizes that the Bible has quite a few "stories of salvation" to tell, that is, metaphors employed to unpack the saving significance of the cross. The story of penal substitution is ultimately biblically-based but is, in itself, inadequate and requires the support of complementary analogies (ransom, etc.). I'm still working through Marshall, but from what I can tell he regards penal substitution as the central metaphor used in Scripture to explain Jesus' crucifixion (see esp. pp. 51-52).
Obviously, as Holmes writes, we want first and foremost to enjoy the redemptive benefits of the cross. Yet, as he says, there is a place for probing the inner logic of Christ's death. The endeavor rightly to construe the atonement and to relate the atonement analogies to one another is, to me, a fascinating and pastorally significant discussion. How do the contours of our presentation of the gospel look if we emphasize the diversity of analogies and don't claim centrality for penal substitution (Holmes)? How do things look if we do claim centrality for penal substitution (Marshall)? What do you think?
I read Marshall's book for my thesis. Particularly used his response to claims of divine child abuse in penal substituation.. or something like that. That's interesting stuff, Steve Duby.
ReplyDeleteAt one point I was thinking about focusing on the atonement in Hebrews because I think that that epistle paints a very unique picture. It is defintely a complementary analogy (to use Holmes' term) to penal substituation... Hebrews probably has more of a 'representative' view.
You will have to tell me what Holmes says about Hebrews.
And those are my two cents. Hope you're doing well, Duby.
Hey Bryan,
ReplyDeleteGreat to hear from you! I need to give you a call to catch up on how things are going for you guys.
I'm not sure that Holmes focuses too much on Hebrews and the lack of a Scripture index at the back of the book means I would have to comb through it pretty meticulously to get the details. Obviously, I haven't studied Hebrews like you have, but I think you mentioning the importance of Christ's representative role is key for a biblical theology of the atonement. Representation can help us understand what qualifies Christ properly to serve as a substitute and substitution specifies one of the ways in which Christ's representation plays itself out.
Will your work at McMaster still focus to some extent on Christ's suffering or are you moving into some new terrain in Hebrews?
Steve