Pierced For Our Transgressions
I don’t know if there’s been any other book I am so excited about the release, other than this one. IVP is set to release in March,”Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the glory of penal substition“ which is seen to be a landmark book about penal substitutionary atonement. Authored by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, & Andrew Sach (relatively unknown, at least to me), the release of this book is a very timely one, as this core doctrine of atonement through Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice has been under severe attack by some within evangelicalism.
If you have kept up with any of the emerging versus Reformed discussions, you know that many Reformed conferences have featured messages fighting for and defending what most Protestants consider historic Christian orthodoxy (ie. DG’s 2006 National Conference). It is an issue that say, 20-30 years ago, was never even considered to be an issue, but in light of the things being written, taught and preached about how penal substitution shouldn’t be the core of atonement… we are now at a dangerous time in Christianity where we must contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. The powers and principalities of the evil realms are at work in our churches, tearing us apart, and dividing us from our faith in what Christ has done for us.
The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Although this is the historic Christian view, it has recently come under attack. Controversy has raged since 2003 when Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis Trust, likened the doctrine to ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’.
Pierced for our Transgressions offers a fresh affirmation of penal substitution, engaging with exegetical, theological, pastoral and historical perspectives. It is designed to be useful for pastors, theological students, and all thinking Christians.
This extended declaration and defence of the penal substitutionary view of Christ’s atoning death responds to a plethora of current criticisms, many of them in-house, with a thoroughness and effectiveness that is without parallel anywhere. The book’s existence shows that a British evangelical theology which exegetically, systematically, apologetically and pastorally can take on the world is in process of coming to birth. I hail this treatise as an epoch-making tour de force, and hopefully a sign of many more good things to come.
J. I. Packer, Professor of Theology, Regent College, Vancouver
At the cross, when Jesus bore the penalty for our sins in our place, the grace of God paid the price his holiness required. This has been the message of the gospel down the ages because this is the message of the gospel as Scripture reveals it. I am deeply grateful for this book, which illumines these facts so well. It is a book faithful to Scripture, knowledgeable of history, conversant with current debate, and deeply committed to seeing the Church flourish in our day.
David F. Wells, Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Massachusetts
It is difficult to imagine a more important book than Pierced for our Transgressions, or a more helpful one. It is important because of its skilful and thorough defence of the doctrine of penal substitution against a growing chorus of objections – objections that threaten our very understanding of the gospel. It is helpful because of its clear and accessible style that illuminates the issues whether you are a scholar, pastor, or simply a Christian who loves the Saviour. I am deeply grateful to God, and to the authors, for this critical and timely book.
C. J. Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries
The Bible historically has been understood to teach explicitly and implicitly that Christ died as a penal substitute for sinners. That’s what this excellent volume teaches us, too. Carefully studying the primary biblical texts and then answering numerous objections, this book explains and defends the understanding that Christ died in our place, taking our penalty for us. From the biblical material to patristic quotations, from pastoral implications to present objections, this book is a responsible and comprehensive introduction. All the authors’ careful work promises to make this book the new standard text on Christ’s atoning work. Now, I can’t wait to read it again, devotionally.
Mark Dever, Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church
Pierced for our Transgressions is probably the most significant book on the doctrine of the cross since The Cross of Christ. It is timely and urgently needed. Let the exposition of this magnificent doctrine both inform your mind and warm your heart.
Mike Pilavachi, Soul SurvivorThe doctrine of penal substitution is often maligned and misunderstood today. Pierced for our Transgressions is the perfect antidote. The authors defend the doctrine with sparkling clarity and winsome logic. I thank God for this work in which penal substitution is biblically grounded, theologically articulated, and historically vindicated. Nor could one object that the authors fail to consider alternative views. Every objection to penal substitution is considered and refuted. In this book we are summoned again to the heart of the gospel.
Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky
This book is important not only because it deals so competently with what lies at the heart of Christ’s cross work, but because it responds effectively to a new generation of people who are not listening very carefully to what either Scripture or history says. One of the delightful features of this book is reflected in the subtitle: the authors make no apology for their thesis, but underscore the glory of penal substitution. This book deserves the widespread circulation achieved by corresponding contributions a generation ago - the contributions of Leon Morris, Jim Packer, and John Stott.
D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois
This is certainly one of the most comprehensive treatments available of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. It presents exegesis, historical theology, and responses to contemporary debate, all in one volume. In all these areas, the book is excellent, both in its exposition and in its argument. It presents a cogent defence of the biblical and historic church doctrine, and in my view it devastates the criticisms of this position. The writing is clear and understandable to non-specialists, but its authors fully understand the technical issues, so that the book makes a real contribution to the academic discussion as well. I am delighted to see this book appear, and I hope that it gets a very wide readership.
John M. Frame, Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida
Exploring Atonement…
So, over the next [I don’t know how long] I have decided to do a series on Exploring the Atonement.
Being the seasoned theologian and all (sarcastic), I thought it would be a fantastic topic to get to know better - especially since I’ve hea…
Pierced For Our Transgressions
Don’t get too excited. I would like to comment on the article posted at the authors’ website.
When the Spirit blows, take the wind in your sails and move on. Don’t stagnate in faith. Be open to receive the truth of God and to let go of all that offends. Have your ears attuned to the sound of His voice. He may be calling you to travel away from your present position. You will want to count the cost. It may seem somewhat fearful and you may envisage consequences that fill you with dread. You argue against leaving and put up your strongest defence, but eventually you either obey the call or deny God and self.
I had no choice. The doctrines that once I upheld no longer rang true. Take the following as an example - argued with vigour by the authors of ‘Pierced For Our Transgressions’ (2007):
Quote: ‘Some who believe in penal substitution have replied by pointing out that Christ suffered willingly, or by noting that God gave himself in Christ to suffer in our place. But while these things are gloriously true, neither actually answers the objection. If guilty sinners are acquitted and an innocent third party is punished, then irrespective of his willingness an injustice has been committed, and it is unthinkable that God would do such a thing.
How are we to respond? The flaw in the argument is the unstated premise that Christ is unrelated to the believer, an unconnected third party. This is not true, for believers are in union with Christ — he is in us, and we are in him, indwelt by his Spirit (e.g. John 17:21; Romans 6:5; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 1:27; Philippians 1:1). It is for this reason that the imputation of our guilt to Christ and his righteousness to us, his punishment and our acquittal, are just in the sight of God.’
What’s all the fuss about? A Brief Introduction to the Penal Substitution Debate
by Steve Jeffery, Andrew Sach and Mike Ovey (authors’ comment on website for the book)
Now, it is well that the authors recognize that punishing the innocent in the place of the guilty is an act of injustice. However, their argument is that Jesus was imputed guilt as a result of His relationship and union with believers.
Yes, believers are in union with Christ — He in us and we in Him. We are made at-one with God, indwelt of the Holy Spirit. It is for this reason we are righteous — covered by the righteous life He gave as a sweet smelling offering and sacrifice for us at the cross (Eph.5:2). An impure offering God will not accept. This ‘oneness’ is the outcome of the atonement Jesus made. We share in His righteousness through faith and consent to the Law of the Spirit in Christ. We are atoned with God — reconciled to God in the righteousness of His Son.
It is not the other way around - that God became reconciled to us and that Jesus became atoned to sinners! For Jesus to have become legally guilty for the sins of believers, He would need to have consented to their crimes. Mere relationship to those who sin does not impart guilt: ‘The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son’ (Ezek.18:20, NKJ). The ‘union’ that is required of one to be imputed criminal guilt is that of complicity in the unlawful acts. Legally and biblically it was not possible for Jesus to have been made guilty for sin. The punishment He suffered was an act of injustice, as the Bible states: ‘His justice was taken away’ (Acts 8:33, NKJ). ‘He submitted Himself to Him who judges righteously,’ Peter wrote (1 Pet.2:23, NKJ). The resurrection was God’s act of justice - overturning the verdict of an illegal court, whilst proclaiming the righteousness of the One who died.
For those who truly repent God promises life, not death — forgiveness and healing, not wrath and punishment. Forgiveness is part of God’s Law; and, when God completely forgives, the beneficiaries are completely absolved from all the penal consequences of all past guilt and sin. In other words, when sinners repent and turn to Christ, condemnation is taken away. God’s response is to forgive, not to punish. The wrath of God remains for those who do not repent; it is not for those who do. Jesus did not die for the sake of the incorrigibly wicked — for whom God’s wrath is justly reserved.
Rather than upholding biblical truth, the doctrine of penal substitution actually contradicts it.
Let’s look at 2 Corinthians 5:16: ‘God made Jesus sin’ - in what sense? How are we to understand Paul’s comment? It is not by taking this phrase out of context. This is what the Bible says, so it must be true! It is - no doubt about it, but in what context? Read on:
Not … ‘from a worldly point of view’
(2 Cor.5:16, NIV)
‘So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer’ (2 Cor.5:16, NIV). How the world sees us and judges us is different to the way God sees us and judges us. There is a worldly point of view, and there is a godly point of view. In the eyes of God, as true believers, we are righteous because Christ is our righteousness. The world looks upon us differently.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote: ‘For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of a procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe …’ (1 Cor.4:9, NIV). Who did this? … God. According to Paul, God had made the apostles to be viewed as foolish and weak: ‘the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world’ (1 Cor.4:9-13, NIV). There is an outward appearance and an inner reality. God allowed the apostles to go hungry and thirsty; to be in rags and brutally treated; to be homeless, cursed, persecuted and slandered. In the eyes of the world, the apostles were worthless scum. Paul said that they had once regarded Christ in this way–from a worldly point of view (2 Cor.5:16, NIV). Jesus was treated like a common criminal, spat upon, slandered, verbally and physically abused, mocked, scourged, nailed to a cross and left to die. In the eyes of the world, Jesus was sin. The mob had shouted for His death. He was regarded as one who had blasphemed God and who had worked miracles by the power of Satan (Mat.26:65; 9:34). To the Jews, He was despised as one who had wished to usurp authority and to destroy the law given to Moses. To the Romans, He was a cause of disorder. To the world, the apostles were ‘the smell of death’ (2 Cor.2:16, NIV), but to God ‘the aroma of Christ’ (2 Cor.2:15, NIV).
On the cross, ‘Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God’ (Eph.5:2, NIV). Jesus did this for us. This was how Christ presented Himself to God, but this was not how He appeared to the world.
We must not take a verse of scripture out of context. This verse: ‘God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor.5:21), is a verse which must be viewed in the context of the passage, the whole letter, and Paul’s related comments in his first letter to the Corinthians and other letters. When we do this, we will not take a worldly view of the cross. In the One whom the world judged as sin we have become the righteousness of God.
Amongst the Corinthians were those who were judging Paul by outward appearance: ‘You are looking only on the surface of things’ (2 Cor.10:7, NIV). Some people were saying that in person he was ‘unimpressive’, that his speaking ‘amounted to nothing’ (2 Cor.10:10, NIV) and demanded proof that he was speaking for Christ: ‘You are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me’ (2 Cor.13:3, NIV). As a way of confirming his calling, Paul chose not so much to speak of the signs of an apostle, which he had wrought amongst them: ‘miracles, signs and wonders’ (2 Cor.12:12), but of his sufferings in the likeness of Christ (2 Cor.6:4-10; 10:23-29). Paul’s concern was not for himself: ‘What we are is plain to God’ (2 Cor.5:11, NIV), but was for those who were forming worldly and divisive judgmental attitudes. Therefore, just as it is wrong to judge Christ by surface appearance, as He was judged by those without faith, so we must not judge each other.
Man had esteemed Christ as one accursed of God (Gal.3:13), smitten and afflicted by Him–but that was only the outward appearance, the view of the world. The Scriptures agree: Christ, ‘through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself unblemished to God’ (Heb.9:14, NIV). Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, told his accusers that they had murdered the ‘Righteous One’, predicted by the prophets (Acts 7:52). The One murdered was righteous. God’s vindication of His Son was the resurrection.
‘God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things … by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross’ (Col.1:19-20, NKJ). Paul said: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, (2 Cor.5:19, NKJ). How were we reconciled to God?… ‘We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son’ (Rom.5:10, NKJ). Therefore, we can conclude, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through the death of His Son–who offered Himself unblemished to God, through the eternal Spirit, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice. This is biblical and reveals that there was no spiritual separation of the Father and the Son at the time of the atonement.
In reality, far from being the embodiment of sin upon the cross, the Scriptures declare that He died righteous, unblemished by sin and at one with God.
‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us’
(2 Cor.5:21, NKJ)
An alternative reading of 2 Cor.5:21 renders the word for sin, Gk.: hamartian, as sin-offering (given as a marginal reference in modern translations). This dual interpretation is made possible due to the fact that there is ample precedent for such usage in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (notably: Lev.4:32; 5:6, 7, 8, 9) and in the Hebrew, e.g. Hosea 4:8, ‘They eat up the sin of My people,’ where a single word is used for sin, Hb.: chatta’ah, which can be translated sin-offering. The Greek expression hamartias, meaning sins or sin-offerings, is used in the book of Hebrews in a direct quotation from the Septuagint of Psalm 40:6: ‘In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure,’ Heb.10:6, NKJ. The word ’sacrifices’ has been added for clarity of meaning by translators, but it does not occur in the Greek of either the passage from the psalm or from the letter to the Hebrews. There is no doubt, therefore, that the term was understood to have this application during New Testament times. A modern translation by David Stern renders 2 Cor. 5:21 as: “God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God’s righteousness” (The Jewish New Testament).
The dual import of Paul’s words in this passage can be understood from the biblical context. It was not the view or judgement of the world that God accepted concerning the sacrifice of His Son. As a sin-offering, Jesus presented Himself as the untainted, pure and perfect offering to God for our sakes, that we, in union with Him, by God’s grace might share in His righteousness and thereby have our sins removed.
The Biblical Revelation of the Cross
by Norman McIlwain (p.21-23,)
Read more from the author’s website: http://www.bible-study-online.org
Well I think you’ll be hearning more of them -Mike Ovey is the new principal at Oak Hill College.
Slightly bemused by the lengthy post above. Saying “I’m putting this in context” and talking at length is not the same as actually doing it -and to be honest there isn’t a pursuasive case there to make the verse say something different based on context. Yes there are alternative readings -but then there is a whole rich imagery in the Old Testament of what sacrifices do including the scape goat reflected into the NT -the one who takes the sins of the world -i.e. they are placed on him and carried away.
Personally I’m not convinced by the alternative reading. The point seems fairly straight forward -what ever people think of us -we are alive and God’s ambassadors -not because of who we are but because of what he has done. He does not count our tresspasses against us -instead we have become righteous -the idea of imputing righteous to us -and therefore sin to him seems to sit well here. But PSA isn’t based on one verse!
Thanx for your comments, Dave. I definitely, agree with you: penal substitution isn’t just based on one verse, but it is a Gospel truth that is seen throughout Scripture. I taught my Sunday School class on the very topic a couple Sundays ago, and I had them go through many passages including: Leviticus 16, 17:11 which you mentioned in relation to the Day of Atonement and the Scapegoat; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Romans 3:21-26; Galatians 3:10-14; 1 John 2:2, 4:10; 1 Peter 2:18-25, 3:18-22; 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5: 14-21.
I myself am convinced that a survey of all Scripture from a bibilcal theology view ultimately tells us that Christ was indeed our substitute - whether it be defeating the power of sin and evil *in our place*, washing us clean by His blood *in our place*, and especially in taking upon the wrath of God that we deserved *in our place*.
Grace to you brother.
[...] is in the primary issues, and right now, the war is around atonement. I have previously mentioned a new book that’s come out in defense of penal substitution, but this past Easter the battle got even [...]