Every Easter the Protestant blogs are full of posts about the Resurrection, and rightfully so. One thing about the Protestant view of the Resurrection of Our Lord has always bothered me though: their view that the Resurrection was essentially nothing more than a 'sales receipt' to show that the Father accepted Jesus' sacrifice. Last year I wrote a brief article on why the Protestant view of Imputation makes the Resurrection of Jesus superfluous, but over the last few days I came to realize another troubling feature about the Protestant view.
In the Protestant view of Penal Substitution, Jesus was receiving the punishment our sins deserved (eternal physical death and eternal damnation). So if the Protestant view is correct, then the Resurrection really makes no sense, because if Jesus simply came to take our punishment, then why should Jesus be 'rewarded' or 'awarded' with a Resurrection? Really, He should not have been. And this leads to the main problem at hand: saying the Resurrection was a 'sales receipt' to show that the Father accepted the sacrifice of Jesus. Consider these quotes from Protestant sources around the web:
- Kevin DeYoung (Reformed): "The resurrection means the death of Jesus was enough—enough to atone for sin, enough to reconcile us to God, enough to present us holy in God’s presence."
- Jerry Bridges (Reformed): "It was God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 8:11), and by that act God declared that Christ’s atoning sacrifice had been accepted. The penalty for our sins was paid in full. The resurrection was God’s declaration that He had cancelled the record of debt that stood against us"
- Got Questions? (popular Protestant apologetics website): "Jesus’ resurrection proved that His death was accepted by God as the atonement for our sins. If He had simply died and stayed dead, that would indicate His sacrifice was not sufficient."
- Grace To You (Reformed apologetics): "Christ did rise, and when He rose from that grave, He proved that He had completed salvation. He had paid the price. He had conquered the enemy, which is sin. He had broken the bands of its executor death, and He was free. And then when God lifted Him to His right hand and exalted Him, God accepted His death. God accepted His substitution."
- Matt Slick (Reformed): "Jesus' resurrection is the proof that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father who had promised, "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay," (Psalm 16:10). Because Jesus offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, He was guaranteed a physical resurrection."
What's wrong with saying the Resurrection "shows that the Father accepted the sacrifice"? Everything! If the model of Atonement is Penal Substitution, then the Father isn't accepting a sacrifice in the first place! In Penal Substitution, the Father is the one Who killed Jesus in the first place, and Jesus ending up dead at the end of the day is proof that the Father's Wrath was satisfied. So the Protestant is really stuck at that point, and their "sacrifice accepted" comments reveal a sort of cognitive dissonance.
The very talk of "proof of acceptance" of Jesus' sacrifice indicates the sacrifice could not have been that of Penal Substitution. Rather, it means the sacrifice had to be of a different nature, one which the Son offers up and the Father accepts. This is the Catholic and Biblical view of Satisfaction, where Jesus' love and obedience unto death (Phil 2:8) were of such immense value in the Father's sight that it atoned for all sins
8 comments:
I think in Penal Substitution the Father is able to accept the sacrifice of Jesus because the Father is the one who instituted the sacrifice. The Father sent Jesus to be the lamb of sacrifice to be slaughtered, so that His wrath is satisfied when the punishment He inflicted on Christ is completed.
From Christ's point of view, He was doing all this out of obedience for the Father. He took the wrath of God and therefore the Father was pleased with His sacrifice and accepted the death of Christ as atonement.
I don't see a problem.
Assuming that you're being serious, how does resurrection fit in with what you just said?
Why does the Resurrection need to be proof that the sacrifice was accepted?
Nick,
This seems to be another case of you making a mountain out of a mole hill.
1. I would not defend the exact wording of every Reformed theologian commenting on the issue. Admittedly, the 2nd sentence you bolded in the Matt Slick quote is confusing.
2. You said, "Jesus ending up dead at the end of the day is proof that the Father's wrath was satisfied." Proof to who? A problem with omitting the resurrection on the penal substitution paradigm is that it truncates the hope and strong faith Christians are given through the Gospel and repentance. Jesus' triumph over sin and death and the Father's acceptance of his perfect offering are NOT DEMONSTRATED to anyone if there is no resurrection. Sure, God himself might be satisfied, but the fullness of the Gospel of Christianity could never be preached.
3. You ask an oddly worded question above, "Why does the Resurrection need to be proof that the sacrifice was accepted?" Obviously, that is not the ONLY function of the resurrection. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with viewing the resurrection as a demonstration of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. Perhaps bodily resurrection was not logically necessary in the strict sense, yet I don't find it incompatible with the Reformed view.
4. On a penal substitution paradigm, suppose there were no resurrection. How would Christians KNOW the sacrifice had been accepted? How would they have hope of resurrection? Picture the guys on the road at the end of Luke's Gospel and how they were changed by an encounter with the risen Lord.
Hello John,
(1) Agreed, but the point I was getting at was that this *concept* is found stated by various well known Reformed.
(2) It was proof for anyone who knows the Gospel, namely the Calvinist. Calvinist St Paul would have known that the Cross was all about God pouring out His Wrath, and when that's finished up then God was obviously satisfied. Think about it: HOW did Jesus die? Did He die of natural causes? No. The only acceptable answer is that God killed Him, and if God killed Him then God's wrath must have been satisfied. Even WITH the Resurrection you have to admit that.
You're saying it "truncates the hope" of Christians, but why is that so? Jesus could have theoretically died for good and God sent the Holy Spirit or something equally grand and "the Gospel" would still be there (Christ's Active and Passive Obedience were already accomplished).
(3) You said: "there is nothing wrong with viewing the resurrection as a demonstration of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice." Yes there is something very wrong with that, since the Father's acceptance has no connection to Resurrection. You might as well say that on Holy Saturday God sent down a divine shout heard around the world saying "My wrath was satisfied". There is no 3rd party sacrifice that God accepts, but rather the very "sacrifice" was God's own doing. God the Father was the High Priest in this case. So it amounts to saying the Resurrection was proof that the High Priest accepted the sacrifice He himself made.
(4) Christians would know without the Resurrection because they would know what Psub was. If they didn't get it at first, then God could have sent any number of signs.
To ask "How would Christians KNOW the sacrifice had been accepted?" is not something a believer in Psub would ask. They would know the sacrifice was accepted because Jesus was dead and the cause of death was His Father doing to Jesus what His Father would have done to us.
Hi Nick,
I'm just going to comment on a few points you made:
"It was proof for anyone who knows the Gospel, namely the Calvinist. Calvinist St Paul would have known that the Cross was all about God pouring out His Wrath, and when that's finished up then God was obviously satisfied."
But if there were no resurrection, how would Calvinist St Paul know that God's wrath has been satisfied? Sure God knows Himself that His wrath has been satisfied, but then nobody else would know it. Without the resurrection, there wouldn't be any Gospel to preach.
"There is no 3rd party sacrifice that God accepts, but rather the very "sacrifice" was God's own doing. God the Father was the High Priest in this case. So it amounts to saying the Resurrection was proof that the High Priest accepted the sacrifice He himself made."
Indeed, that would be the cooperation and perfect harmony within the Trinity itself. God accepted the sacrifice He Himself made.
"To ask "How would Christians KNOW the sacrifice had been accepted?" is not something a believer in Psub would ask. They would know the sacrifice was accepted because Jesus was dead and the cause of death was His Father doing to Jesus what His Father would have done to us."
The believers wouldn't know anything if Christ wasn't resurrected. Christ told His disciples that He would rise on the 3rd day, if this did not happen, then the Christians at that time would think that everything He said was a lie. But no, the resurrection is proof that He told the truth!
Hi J,
You said: "But if there were no resurrection, how would Calvinist St Paul know that God's wrath has been satisfied?"
There are many ways. There was an earthquake, the Temple curtain was torn, water flowed from Christ's side, the day suddenly became dark. John witnessed these things. And most of all, we know because Jesus died, and the only way He could have died is if God killed Him.
You said: "God accepted the sacrifice He Himself made."
That's a confusion of the Persons in the Trinity. The Father and Holy Spirit were not High Priest nor Victim.
You said: "The believers wouldn't know anything if Christ wasn't resurrected. Christ told His disciples that He would rise on the 3rd day"
Christ telling His disciples he would rise on the 3rd day is precisely why I'm arguing PSub is false. In other words, if PSub is true, then Jesus would not have talked like that in the first place. His death would have been spoken of and understood as Him stepping in to take the fall for the team, and in the very act of taking the fall they'd know His work was done.
If I am paying a ransom to you, I know the ransom took place by the very fact my bank account is now empty. I don't need you to give me a receipt.
Nick,
Thanks for the reply. Let me try to be more clear on my main point.
You bring up the question, "How did Jesus die?" To which the obvious answer is: by crucifixion. Now, consider the following:
(1) All men who were crucified died.
(2) Jesus was crucified.
(3) Jesus died.
This syllogism would be the death knell to Christian preaching post-resurrection, especially considering that the true messiah and King of the Jews was supposed to triumph over the powers of the world. However, add a 4th premise and all is made right again in Christian preaching:
(4) Jesus rose from the dead.
It just seems fitting that the Trinity decided to use the miracle of resurrection to demonstrate Christ's perfect sacrifice had been accomplished and Christ had triumphed over death.
However, even if you disagree with all I have expressed above, I still am unclear about your argument. You seem to argue that:
N1) The fact that the Father "accepted the sacrifice" of Christ is incompatible with PSub.
and
N2)The MEANS by which the sacrifice was accepted (resurrection) is incompatible with PSub.
I believe I have dealt with (N2) in showing that resurrection was a fitting sign of acceptance and fits nicely with the Gospel. However, I am confused as to why you believe (N1).
Why can't a Christian affirm that Christ bore the guilt of the elect in his sacrifice, that the Father poured out His wrath on the scapegoat (His Son) at the cross, and that the Father accepted the guilt-offering as an all-sufficient propitiation?
Hello John,
You said:
"You seem to argue that: N1) The fact that the Father "accepted the sacrifice" of Christ is incompatible with PSub."
More specifically, I'm saying that the notion that the FUNCTION of the Resurrection was to SHOW US that the Father accepted the sacrifice is problematic.
I'm saying in the PSub framework, the Father certainly did accept the offering of Jesus, but that God did not need to Resurrect Jesus to 'prove' anything. Think of the Levitical sacrifices, did the animal need to be miraculous resurrected by God to let the Israelites know their offering was accepted? No. They knew it was because they went through the proper sacrificial rituals.
If the Father is the High Priest effecting the sacrifice, then of course He knows it was done right, and we trusting in God know He did it right. To say we need a resurrection is to doubt the Father's High Priesthood as if we cannot trust if He did it right. It would be like the Israelites gathering around Aaron on the Day of Atonement after he came out of the Holy of Holies and saying "Aaron, we need proof that you did the sacrifice properly."
Post a Comment