'Images' of salvation (or of the atonement) is a better term than 'theories'. For theories are usually abstract and speculative concepts, whereas the biblical images of the atoning achievement of Christ are concrete pictures and belong to the data of revelation. They are not alternative explanations of the cross, providing us with a range to choose from, but complementary to one another, each contributing a vital part to the whole. As for the imagery, 'propitiation' introduces us to rituals at a shrine, 'redemption' to transactions in a market-place, 'justification' to proceedings in a lawcourt, and 'reconciliation' to experiences in a home or family. My contention is that 'substitution' is not a further 'theory' or 'image' to be set alongside the others, but rather the foundation of them all, without which each lacks cogency. If God in Christ did not die in our place, there could be neither propitiation, nor redemption, nor justification, nor reconciliation.
--From "The Cross of Christ" (Leicester and Downers Grove: IVP, 1986), p. 168. Thanks John Stott & Happy 90th Birthday.
--From "The Cross of Christ" (Leicester and Downers Grove: IVP, 1986), p. 168. Thanks John Stott & Happy 90th Birthday.
That's the great thing about The Cross of Christ: you never run out of new insights and great quotes from reading that book. Hence why it's a classic. :-)
ReplyDelete