Book Review: The Great Exchange
Monday, February 4, 2008 at 11:32AM 
My Sin for His Righteousness by Jerry Bridges and Bob Bevington.
I mentioned back in November that I’d be reviewing this book soon. When I made that foolish statement, I didn’t anticipate that The Great Exchange is not a book suitable for skimming. It is, instead, packed full of goodies, requiring that I make frequent stops for digesting as I made my way through. So here we are, three months later, and I’m finally finished up with reading and moving on to reviewing.
In The Great Exchange, Jerry Bridges and Bob Bevington show us what the apostles taught in scripture about the atonement, patterning their work after George Smeaton’s The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, a classic study written more than 130 years ago. There are two sections in this book: a first section summing up the teaching of the apostles on Christ’s atonement and placing this teaching in it’s historical context; and the second—the bulk of the book—examining the apostle-authored texts dealing with Christ’s atonement, moving from Acts through Revelation.
The authors are firmly convinced that the message of the cross is central to true faith.
The message of the cross—the historical gospel of the God-man, Jesus Christ, who personally visited the earth, which was created through him, with the mission of redeeming his own people with his own infinitely precious, bloody, substitutionary death—has been and must remain the solitary basis and the singular foundation of the Christian faith and worldview.
And you can’t read more than a few pages of The Great Exchange and not clue into how much these two gentlemen cherish the doctrine of the atonement. Over and over, page after page, they show us from numerous texts that the apostles are teaching us a precious truth:
…[T]he Great Exchange that results from the death of the perfect sacrifice is a twofold substitution: the charging of the believer’s sin to Christ results in God’s forgiveness, and the crediting of Christ’s righteousness to the believer results in his justification. More than being declared not guilty, in Christ believers are actually declared righteous. Redeemed sinners and the Christ have traded places.
There you have it—the great exchange of Christ’s atonement. If you desire to better understand and appreciate this great exchange—and we all should, shouldn’t we?—this book is the right place to start. It’s good theology coupled with writing that anyone can understand. I plan to add it to my short list of theology books for the lay person, but it would be well-suited for any pastor or teacher, too.
I have just a few very small complaints, too small to mention were this an ordinary book. But it’s not ordinary; it ought to be a classic based on the depth of content. It’s that depth of content that makes some of the awkward phrasing, like “equally as,” for instance, worthy of mention. There are also a few factual errors that I found as I read and studied along. The text says, for example, that the phrase “in him” occurs twice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and it’s only there once. (It occurs once more in verse 19, and this is probably the second occurrence intended.)
In addition, there are more than a few places where statements are made that are undoubtedly correct, but that I’d like to see defended more explicitly. Let me show you what I mean:
As God, and as co-maker of the law, Christ was under no obligation on his own account to be under the law or to obey the law, and, as a result, he is capable of giving his voluntary obedience away.
I don’t disagree, but I couldn’t give the reasons why this statement is right. I wish the authors had given the reasoning behind this statement and several others like it, perhaps not in the text, but in endnotes or appendices.
I do hope The Great Exchange becomes a classic, because it is a wonderful tool for expanding the reader’s understanding of Christ’s work and increasing their love for Christ himself. You can read selected portions of it at the book’s website, where you will also find links to study guides. I highly recommend it, and if enough of you buy it, maybe they’ll take care of my quibbles in the second edition.
Reader Comments (14)
I like your new photo.
"As God, and as co-maker of the law, Christ was under no obligation on his own account to be under the law or to obey the law, and, as a result, he is capable of giving his voluntary obedience away."
I read that sentence three or four times and I still don't really understand what it means--"'capable' of giving his voluntary obedience away."
Maybe it makes more sense in context, but at the very least it's awkward and unclear. To whom did He give His voluntary obedience? Are they talking about His having fulfilled the law perfectly?
(I like your new photo, too!)
There wasn't much more context around that sentence to explain it.
Here's what I think it means. For any other human being, law keeping is a requirement, so if we kept the law, it would count for our own record of obedience. We could not give it away, because we need it for ourselves. But it's different for Christ. It was not required of Christ that he keep the law, since as God and as the one from whom the law comes he is above the law. Therefore, his law keeping can be "given away" or transferred to those who are in him, and then counted as their own.
Does that make sense?
This is not an idea I remember reading (or at least noticing) before, so I'd really like to see the case made for it. I think it's right, but why is it right?
Hmmm. I'm like you, it would have been nice if that statement had been unpacked. It sounds like a great book, though.
A couple of things that come to mind: Matthew 12:8 "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
John 5:16-18: "And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
And to think I just wanted to get on the computer to quickly check my e-mail.
I haven't come across this book before - thanks for the honest review.
Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
I'd have a hard time talking about that subject without using the word imputation.
Hi Staci,
I've thought about it a bit more, and I'm not sure I even think that statement is correct anymore. I agree that Christ as God was above the law and as such wasn't duty-bound to keep it. But I'm not sure that as a human being, he wasn't required to keep the law just like every other human being.
Secondly, even if he wasn't required to keep the law, and thus kept it voluntarily, while under no obligation to do so, why is it the fact that he was not under obligation to keep the law the thing that makes him able to "give his voluntary obedience away"? After all, Adam was under obligation to obey and yet his disobedience was imputed to us. Why couldn't the opposite parallel also be true? That Christ's obedience could be imputed to those he represented even if obedience was required of him?
It would be nice to see the reasoning behind that statement developed because I'm not sure the correctness of it is as obvious as the authors seem to think.
I'd have a hard time talking about that subject without using the word imputation.
They do use the word "imputation" throughout the book. But the whole book is centered around imputation, so I think they needed to find synonyms so as not to get too repetitive. I'm not sure "give away" is the best one.
This is the kind of thing that can keep me thinking for days. Which is a good thing.
I see your point. I'm wondering if they authors were thinking along the lines of Philippians 2. Since Christ came voluntarily to earth, in that regard he voluntarily placed himself under the law. Of course, if that's what they meant, they probably would have said it that way.
I still think I agree with the statement, but I still am not sure why.
I wonder how much blog reading Jerry Bridges does? (c:
This is the kind of thing that can keep me thinking for days.
Yep.
The part I have the most trouble with is the statement that it's that Christ was under no obligation on his own account to obey that makes his obedience of the sort that can be imputed. Why isn't it enough that Christ was designated our representative head in the same way that Adam was, so that what he does counts for us, too? Why does his obedience have to be nonobligatatory in order for it to count for others? Does that idea come from scripture? Or is there other reasoning behind it?
These guys have spent so much time with this material that my inclination is to think they are right when they make this statement. However, it's not obvious to me, and I'm not the sort to take anything just on someone else's say-so, so it'd be nice to have it explained and supported more.
This is not the only place in the book where I have big question marks in the margin, BTW. This is just an example of the sort of statements that gave me pause made several times throughout the book.
I doubt Jerry Bridges reads blogs...especially mine. :)
My first thought is human nature vs. divine nature. Humanly Christ received no sin nature through Mary. Some think according to Heb.7:9-10 the sin nature is passed down through the father not the mother. Col.2:9 tell us of His divine nature. This could lead one to the controversy of Federal Headship or am I off the mark? Are the authors in this camp?
Boy that post got messed up! Parts of my sentences got deleted somehow! I was talking about federal headship yes, Federal Vision as the controversy, antinominism, etc. Now I'm flustered and lost my train of thought! Just delete the posts!! Shouldn't have touched this right after work.
Ok, I have been dwelling on this statement for a while since my previous post and I have come to this conclusion .... It is a confusing if not erroneous statement. God is not under or equal to his law but his law reflects his person and does not conflict with it. Christ chose to submit to the ceremonial law which is not equal to the moral law.
I do think Christ kept the moral law. If he hadn't, we wouldn't be able to have his righteous record imputed to us.