Substitution and Participation

Quoting from Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach:

In the theology of the Bible generally and particularly in Paul’s writings, there is a sense in which believers are ‘caught’ up in the death of Jesus, such that his death becomes theirs. In Romans this emphasis comes to prominence in chapter 6, where we are said to have ‘died with Christ’ (Rom 6:8; cf. v. 2) and to have been ‘crucified with him’ (v. 6). A similar point is made elsewhere, for example, Colossians 2:20 and Galatians 2:20….

Some writers, however, have mistakenly supposed that this emphasis on what is often termed our ‘participation’ in Christ’s death excludes the idea of substitution. Or to use other terminology, they claim Christ’s death was a case of ‘inclusive place-taking’ (he shared in our experience), and this is incompatible with ‘exclusive place taking’ (Christ experienced something in order that we might not share it).

These writers are right to affirm the place of participation, but wrong to think that this displaces substitution. The two perspectives sit alongside each other in Scripture. Thus the emphasis in Romans 6:8 and Colossians 2:20 that we have ‘died with Christ’ comes together with the earlier affirmations in both letters that is was through ‘his blood’ (and not ours) that we have been justified and have peace with God (Rom. 3:25; 5:1, 9; Col. 1:20). Similarly, 1 Peter 4:1 does not overturn the substitutionary emphases of 1 Peter 2:24 and 3:18.

The atonement, like so many of God’s works, is multifaceted. (And even the word multi-faceted comes up short.) We of the pea brains must look from one direction at a time, and the temptation is to look from one direction only ever, so that we see the cut diamond as one sparkling pane of glass and nothing more. 

But there’s always more. Not substitution or participation, but both; not wrath or love, but both; not expiation or propitiation, but both; not Christus Victor or penal substitution, but both—and more. 

Don’t let flat doctrinal thinking keep you from embracing the diamond.

Round the Sphere Again: Those Who've Gone Before

Because it’s only right to know and value their contributions.

Buncha Baptists
Theologian of missions: Fred Zaspel on Andrew Fuller: The Man Who Rescued the Baptists from Hyper-Calvinism (mp3). Listening to this made me think I should have “well-meant offer” and “duty faith” in my glossary of theological terms. I do have hyper-Calvinism.

Founder of the Particular Baptists: A short biographical sketch of William Kiffen (Steve Weaver at Credo Blog).

Pioneer in congregational hymn singing: A piece on Benjamin Keach (Steve Weaver at Credo Blog).

Singular Anglican
Perseverance in doing good: The quick version of the life of William Wilberforce by Joe Carter at The Gospel Coalition Blog.

Theological Term of the Week

JEDP theory
A theory that supposes that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was not written by one author (Moses), but was written or compiled by different authors (J - the Yahwist, E -  the Elohimist, D - Deuteronomist, P - Priestly) who lived after the time of Moses; also called documentary hypothesis.

• From scripture (and there are many more places where New Testament writers affirm Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch):

And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? (Mark 12:26 ESV)

• From Introduction to the Pentateuch in The ESV Study Bible:

For more than 2,000 years, readers of the Pentateuch assumed that Moses was its author (cf. Mark 7:10). This was a natural conclusion to draw from its contents, for most of the laws are said to have been given to Moses by God (e.g., Lev. 1:1), and indeed some passages are explicitly said to have been written down by Moses (see Deut. 31:9, 24). The account of his death could have been recorded by someone else, though some held it was a prophetic account by Moses himself (Deuteronomy 34).

But in the late eighteenth century, critical scholars began challenging the assumption of Mosaic authorship. They argued that several authors were responsible for writing the Pentateuch. These authors supposedly wrote many centuries after Moses, and were separated from each other in time and location. Complicated theories were developed to explain how the Pentateuch grew as different authors’ accounts were spliced and adjusted by a series of editors. According to these critical scholars, it was likely that the Pentateuch reached its final form in the fifth century b.c., nearly a millennium after Moses.

In the late twentieth century this type of critical theory was strongly attacked, not just by conservative scholars but also by those brought up on such theories. They argue that the theories are too complicated, self-contradictory, and ultimately unprovable. It is much more rewarding and less speculative to focus interpretative effort on the final form of the text. So there is a strong move to abandon the compositional theories of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for simpler hypotheses. Thus some critical scholars would see the Pentateuch being an essentially fifth-century b.c. creation. Others suggest earlier dates. But none of these suggestions can really be proven.

The Pentateuch does undoubtedly claim to be divine in origin, mediated through Moses. Thus Moses should be looked to as the original human author. Indeed, as stated above, the Pentateuch looks like a life of Moses, with an introduction. But this need not mean that he wrote every word of the present Pentateuch. It seems likely that the spelling and the grammar of the Pentateuch were revised to keep it intelligible for later readers. Also, a number of features in the text look like clarifications for a later age. But this is quite different from supposing that the Pentateuch was essentially composed in a later age. Rather, it should be seen as originating in Moses’ time but undergoing some slight revision in later eras so later readers could understand its message and apply it to their own situations.

Learn more:

1. Theopedia: JEDP theory, Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch
2. GotQuestions.org: What is JEDP theory?, What is the documentary hypothesis?
3. Reformed Answers: What is JEDP theory?
4. Basic Theology Forums: JEDP theory
5. Duane Garrett: The Documentary Hypothesis
6. Colin D. Smith:  A Critical Assessment of the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis

Related terms:

• inspiration of scripture
• textual criticism

Filed under Scripture.

This week’s term was suggested by Diane Bucknell. Do you have a term you’d like to see featured here as a Theological Term of the Week? If you email it to me, I’ll seriously consider using it, giving you credit for the suggestion and linking back to your blog when I do.

Clicking on the Theological Term graphic at the top of this post will take you to a list of all the previous theological terms in alphabetical order.