There are two key consequences of the cross. One on God, penal substitution, i.e., Jesus satisfies God's wrath (Rom 3.25-26; Gal 3.13; 2 Cor 5.21). The other on Satan, Christus Victor, i.e., Jesus defeats the Devil (Col 2.15; Heb 2.14-15; 1 John 3.8). Secondarily (and this must be kept secondary), on us. This also manifests in two ways. The primary of these is moral influence, i.e., Jesus shows God's love to us (1 John 3.16; 4.7-12; Rom 5.8). It is this that motivates to love him back. Then, to a lesser degree, moral example, i.e., Jesus shows us how to love and trust God (1 Pet 2.21). On the cross we see how to love and trust God even in our darkest hour. In regard to us, we must take care to not make ourselves the primary object of the cross.
At the same time, all of this should be kept in mind - especially by those of us that embrace penal substitution. In our modern culture it is too easy to think only in those terms. We must remember that penal substitution is a relatively new construct. The early church focus was Christus Victor. In that sense, the postmodern innovator has done well to challenge our thinking. Unfortunately, with this, as with so much else, the pendulum is swung by them too far and in this matter, toward the secondary, i.e., the focus on us and for some, more sadly, the focus on the lesser point relative to us, i.e., Christ as a moral example (which he no doubt is).
Regarding penal substitution, we must remember that it is a bit limited in it's application. Only when we combine this with Christus Victor do we get the clearer picture of the implications of the cross in regard to the church and creation. And so while I often defend/promote penal substitution, I wanted to go on record to say I have often erred by not advocating all aspects of the cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment