A Reply to Gregory Bock James S. Spiegel Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University I want to thank Gregory Bock for his critical response to my JBTS article “‘It’s the Wrath of God’: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment.”[1] In my article I pose the question whether it is ever reasonable to infer that a particular contemporary state of affairs is a case of divine wrath. In addressing this question I review several cases of divine wrath reported by the biblical writers, including the worldwide flood (Gen. 6), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), the Egyptian plagues (Exod. 12), the Korah rebellion (Num. 16), and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts. 5). In light of such cases, I discuss potential criteria for inferring the occurrence of divine wrath. The conditions I propose include: (1) the occurrence of a miracle in conjunction with the event in question, (2) extraordinary coincidences associated with the event, and (3) the association of the event with a fulfilled bold prediction. Read the full article: A Reply to Gregory Bock [1] James S. Spiegel, “‘It’s the Wrath of God’: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment,” Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4:2 (2019): 301-16. Share this on:…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

The Trouble with Inferring Divine Punishment: A Response to James S. Spiegel Gregory L. Bock Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion The University of Texas at Tyler In a recent JBTS article, “‘It’s the Wrath of God’: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment,” James S. Spiegel considers whether we can be justified in believing that events in our lives and the lives of others are instances of divine punishment.[1] His stated aim is to answer the skeptical thesis – “the view that all assertions of divine wrath since biblical times are speculative at best and perhaps even irresponsible.”[2] In other words, he argues that an event’s being in the Bible is not a necessary condition for concluding that it is an instance of divine punishment. He proposes three sufficient conditions that justify ascriptions of divine wrath. The conditions are as follows: the occurrence of a miracle; extraordinary coincidence; or fulfilled bold prediction.[3] He admits that applying these conditions will not produce the same level of confidence we have in identifying cases of divine punishment in Scripture, and he stresses that we must be cautious lest we slander God by ascribing to him intentions he does not have. I interpret Spiegel’s emphasis…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Understanding and Applying Exodus 19:4-6: A Case Study in Exegesis and Theology Jason S. DeRouchie Research Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary [email protected] / https://jasonderouchie.com Perhaps more than any other single text, Exodus 19:4–6 provides the Bible’s clearest and simplest snapshot of God’s revealed purpose for the old covenant. This essay seeks to interpret this passage within its immediate and broader biblical context, understanding and applying it as the Christian Scripture God intended (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:16–17; 1 Pet 1:12). The study also supplies a case study in exegetical and theological inquiry following the twelve steps outlined in my book, How to Understand and Apply the Old Testament.[1] Recognizably, the nine steps of exegesis and three steps of theology are all interrelated, and distinguishing them is somewhat artificial to the process of interpreting the Bible. Nevertheless, using a single passage to walk through the twelve steps should help students understand better the various aspects of exegesis and theology that are necessary for rightly handling God’s word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). Read the full article: Understanding and Applying Exodus 19:4-6: A Case Study in Exegesis and Theology [1] Jason S. DeRouchie, How…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Performing the Surgery, Saving the Patient: Reduplication, Proper Christological Predication, and Critiques of Christus Odium Ty Kieser Guest Assistant Professor of Theology at Wheaton College Abstract: In response to the christological objections to Christus Odium raised by Farris and Hamilton, this article argues that Christus Odium cannot be ruled out on christological grounds. Further it shows that if these christological objections stand, then there would be adverse implications for other views of the atonement, including more historic and classical theories. So instead of objecting to Christus Odium on christological grounds, this article suggests that the discussion be relocated into the dogmatic sphere of the doctrine of God and seek to clarify the definition and nature of divine “hatred.” Key Words: Christology, Hypostatic Union, Atonement, Reduplication, Divine Justice Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

The Father’s Love for the Son in Penal Substitutionary Atonement Ryan Rippee President, The Cornerstone Bible College and Seminary Abstract: In what Joshua Farris and S. Mark Hamilton label the Christus Odium variant of penal substitutionary atonement, the Son becomes the object of the Father’s perfect hatred on the cross. However, within a penal substitutionary model of the atonement, when propitiation was made, did it necessitate that the Father hates the Son? No, on the contrary, a biblical model of penal substitutionary atonement is the most glorious display of the Father’s love for his Son in the Spirit. The Father’s eternal plan of the atonement is rooted in his love for the Son and brings him great pleasure in accomplishing his purpose at the cross. The Father sent the Son, empowered by the Spirit to be a penal substitutionary sacrifice so that those worshippers would not only see the glory of the Father in the face of Christ, but would experience the Father’s love in the Son by the indwelling Spirit. Further, the Father hates sin but cannot hate his Son, and so was greatly pleased that the Son laid down his life and took it up again, accomplishing redemption…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

It Was the Will of the Father to Crush Him: The Day of Atonement and the Cross of Christ Owen Strachan Provost and Research Professor of Theology at Grace Bible Theological Seminary Abstract: The cross of Christ is a scandal, a mystery, and for Christians, an object of wonder. Even today, after millennia of reflection upon the crucifixion, theologians and pastors still probe the atonement, debating and discussing numerous elements of the cross-work of Christ: how wrath is borne, whether sin is forgiven, and what precisely transpires when the Son cries out that he is “forsaken” of the Father. This article will argue not that the crucifixion involved the “breaking” of the Trinity, for this is metaphysically and ontologically impossible, nor that the Father “hated” the Son at Calvary. This article contends amidst a range of views that there is nonetheless real interruption of communion between the Father and Son during his agonizing cross-work. Because the Father “crushes” the Son under the weight of his wrath against sin, we know divine rescue and forgiveness, learning from the atonement of Christ the distinctive beauty of biblical love, a love foreshadowed in the Day of Atonement in older times. This article is thus…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

A Less Odious Atonement Requires a More Classical God: Engaging Farris and Hamilton on Christus Odium Derek Rishmawy Campus minister with Reformed University Fellowship at University of California Irvine and Ph.D. Candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Abstract: Joshua Farris and Mark Hamilton have leveled a serious critique of the so-called Christus Odium variant of Penal Substitution in their article “This is My Beloved Son Whom I Hate?” JBTS (2018), wherein the Son is said to satisfy not only the justice, but specifically the hate of the Father. Farris and Hamilton raise a series of exegetical, dogmatic, and pastoral problems with it—and by extension raise issues with more modest forms of PSA. In this paper, I examine what form the doctrine might take in the context of a classical doctrine of God. First, I attempt to render an orthodox version by retrieving impassibility and analogy to reframe divine hate. I then deploy the doctrines of simplicity, inseparable operations, appropriations, and a Chalcedonian Christology to coordinate the relationship of Father and Son in the activity of satisfying that hate. If my proposal works—renders the Odium less odious—then it will show the same doctrine of God will preserve more modest versions of…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Which Penalty? Whose Atonement? Revisiting Christus Odium Joshua R. Farris and S. Mark Hamilton Farris is Professor of Theology of Science at Missional University and Hamilton is Research Associate at JESociety.org Abstract: So unreasonable is the idea that God the Father hated his Son in order to make atonement for the sin of humanity, it bedevils the mind to imagine anyone attempting reasoning out a theological defense for it. Nevertheless, the so-called Christus Odium variant of Penal Substitution has continued to garner support from when we first discerned its contemporary reappearance and waved the warning flag—initially in the form of a conference paper at ETS (2017) and eventually as an article in JBTS (2018) entitled, ‘This is My Beloved Son Whom I Hate?’ In this paper, we offer up a brief survey of some of the problems that Christus Odium presents, buffeting these problems with two historical accounts of Penal Substitution from John Calvin and Herman Witsius that directly warn against the Christus Odium variant. And then taking a cue from these historical sources, we break down the doctrine of Penal Substitution into some more manageable parts, in order to show that on a logically consistent understanding of this atonement…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

The ‘Christus Odium’ Variety of Penal Substitution in Contemporary Perspective: A Brief Editorial Introduction Ryan A. Brandt Managing Editor; Associate Professor of Christian History and Theology at Grand Canyon University Joshua R. Farris and S. Mark Hamilton have recently argued that the “Christus Odium” variety of penal substitution is an inappropriate model of the atonement both according to Scripture and theological reasoning.[1] They define their specific objection: “in some evangelical quarters, it is no longer enough to simply believe that Christ absorbed the wrath of God as a penal substitute. Some have recently gone so far as to claim that, as a penal substitute, Christ became the object of the Father’s perfect hatred.”[2] Farris and Hamilton, among other things, object to the notion that Jesus, the Son of God, was or ever could be hated by the Father. They term this view the “Christus Odium” view, which is a stronger variation of penal substitution view. As the editor of the journal that published Farris’s and Hamilton’s original article, I asked Owen Strachan (a member of our editorial board) if he would be interested in responding to their article, believing that this interaction would stir an interesting and productive conversation. Sometime…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

JBTS 6.2 Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): A Centenary Celebration The Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies (hereafter, JBTS) is a broadly evangelical, interdenominational journal committed to publishing current scholarship across biblical and theological disciplines. Biblical and theological themes have been the focus of every issue to date. Within biblical studies, examples include the Israelite Monarchy and Pauline Studies, and within theological studies, examples include Christianity and the Philosophy of Science and the Catholicity of the Church. This iteration, JBTS 6.2, marks the first volume dedicated exclusively to a Christian theologian and scholar. This shift in focus prompts at least two questions: why dedicate a volume to a singular figure, and why focus upon Herman Bavinck? To find out read JBTS 6.2: JBTS 6.2 Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): A Centenary Celebration (Full Issue) Introduction to Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): A Centenary Celebration by N. Gray Sutanto and Justin McLendon Herman Bavinck on Antirevolutionary Politics by George Harinck Planting Tulips in the Rainforest: Herman and Johan Bavinck on Christianity in East and West by James Eglinton Encyclopedia Bavinck: The Case of the History of the Theological Encyclopedia by Greg Parker Jesus the Law Restorer: Law and the Imitation of Christ in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics by Jess Joustra Bavinck’s Doctrine of God: Absolute, Divine Personality by Gayle Doornbos Dogmatics: A Progressive…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin