I posed a question this morning on twitter: Could we still call it "Good Friday" were it not for the Resurrection of Christ?
Before I give some of the insightful responses that were given, I want to share a little bit of where this question comes from:
1. In the introduction to yesterday's sermon, the pastor said that even if Jesus had not been raised from the dead that the story that led to the crucifixion would have been the greatest story ever...a story of love and sacrifice beyond human comprehension. My wife and I immediately reacted with confused looks to one another later conversed together, asking: "Would that really be true? Wouldn't love have actually lost if it remained dead? Wouldn't this simply echo the mantra 'Life sucks, then it's over' that we so often hear today?" Aside from what we thought was a bewildering statement, the sermon was filled with the power of the resurrection and its significance for us even today!
2. One of the criticisms of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is that it doesn't require or have any real appropriation of the resurrection of Jesus. That Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins is enough. This is not to say that those who hold to PSA don't believe in the resurrection, but that they often separate the atonement from the resurrection and don't see them as related (necessarily anyway).
3. Some Asbury University students approached me at the library one night last week and asked, "Why do we call it 'Good' Friday?" In one sense we see it as the greatest of tragedies in a perfectly innocent One to taste such a brutal, shameful, and lonely execution. On the other hand, we see the atoning work and forgiveness given and displayed in this One who died though he is righteous. My answer, though, also included that we call it 'Good' in light of what happens on the third day - resurrection!
So these interactions and ideas framed the context from which the "poll" question arose. I received some thoughtful replies that added to what is above in the following responses:
S: No. Good Friday would be equivalent of a day set aside for a martyr who taught nice things, but without authority.
A: Yes. It's Good also because our sins were atoned for... in the same way that medieval Christians referred to The Fortunate Fall
D: atonement without resurrection is good, but not Good because it doesn't accomplish the larger end of giving life.
A: forgiveness of sins is more than we can ask for. Anything else is gravy
D: I agree, but there's so much gravy! and would forgiveness alone, while amazing, have done all Christ said he came to do?
A: I think the question was is it Good Friday without the Resurrection. Yes. That said, I don't separate them.
I posted a note from John Wesley on Friday about redemption. He suggests that forgiveness is the beginning of redemption and that resurrection is the completion of it. If right, then a Good Friday without the resurrection would be an incomplete work...at least in terms of 'redemption,' which is a theme of atonement theology, is it not?
However (and perhaps this was A's point above), in the atoning sacrifices of Leviticus, we don't see the necessary implication of resurrection, do we? So perhaps the related question is whether we could consider the sacrifices as "good" insofar as they reconcile God with God's people. Applied to Christ, was his death all that was necessary to atone for our sins and/or reconcile us to God? Or was the resurrection a part of this too? Paul, in Romans 4.25, seems to place these together, especially if we understand justification in terms of forgiveness or pardon, as Wesley did [not that we are bound to his definitions :) ]. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
What do you think? How much of Friday's 'Good'-ness is derivative of what happened on the third day? And perhaps the question that challenges those like me, who hesitate to call it 'Good' without the resurrection is this: What did Jesus mean by crying 'It is finished!' from the cross? (That last question may need to be addressed in another post.)
What do you think? How much of Friday's 'Good'-ness is derivative of what happened on the third day? And perhaps the question that challenges those like me, who hesitate to call it 'Good' without the resurrection is this: What did Jesus mean by crying 'It is finished!' from the cross? (That last question may need to be addressed in another post.)
The connection between Friday and Sunday is vital. There are so many important aspects of the resurrection that make it the most essential aspect of the Christian faith. I would actually prefer a large hole in the walls of our churches, rather than a cross, personally! That's how important the empty tomb is in comparison to the cross itself.
ReplyDeleteI think your point 2 is significant here, and one reason why PSA is "not enough" to explain the totality of the atonement. Indeed the incarnation itself is atoning in many respects.
What I think is important is to add into the mix the concept of "fallenness". Whilst the blood of Christ atones for sin/Sin/sins, the resurrection restores humanity from its fallen state. This is often overlooked or at least forgotten when we speak of atonement theology. The ideas of rebirth/regeneration etc are all connected but the importance of the resurrection lies in Christ's raising humanity from the fallen state we were found in as a result of sin. Once the sin is atoned for it is the raising again that lifts us up again.
Thanks for your input, Adam! The idea of a large hole in the wall is intriguing, for sure! :-)
ReplyDeleteLike you say, I think the connection between Friday & Sunday is inseparable. Certainly 1 Corinthians 15 has something to say in terms of the centrality of the resurrection such that if it weren't true, then we'd still be in our sin! What if "It is finished!" is (at least in part) declaring the death sentence of the old creation so that the new creation can begin in the resurrection?
I should also note that the question was raised this morning as to whether PSA holds only to the penal substitution part (or if other components/themes of the atonement are also included). My own reply to that is that the penal substitutionary approach itself does not necessarily negate the other models/themes, but many theologians hold to PSA as the primary or controlling aspect of the atonement, such that other themes are seen as secondary to it or are seen through PSA's lens. For examples of how this works, check out the different views/approaches in _The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views_ http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Atonement-Four-Views/dp/0830825703
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is fairly subtle. PSA's main difficulty is, like the judaisers of old who insisted on circumcision, that Christ is understood in terms of the law rather than the law in terms of Christ. The law takes on ontological primacy rather than Christ. This is precisely the problem that St Paul corrects in Galatians 3 by stating that the law is the "tutor of Christ"; that since the thing signified by the law has now come, the law is now to be understood in terms of Christ. PSA reverts to the judaising hermeneutic where Christ is seen primarily in terms of the jewish law. This is the natural result of the "realism" of the renaissance, culminating in the death of allegorical interpretation.
ReplyDeleteReplacing the hermeneutic of Christ in late medieval theology is the hermeneutic of dialectic. It is precisely in this new hermeneutic that we find the dispute over the presence of the corpus on the cross: with Catholics almost exclusively including it and Protestants almost exclusively excluding it.
I thus find in Adam's suggestion that a hole replace the cross merely another instance of the corpus dialectic (Adam, I assume your comment is hyperbole, so don't take this comment as aimed personally at you). Isn't the fact that the corpus is missing from the cross an intentional Protestant theological statement about the resurrection of Christ?
The cross and the empty tomb are not a dialectic. Such a view can only be held where the Pauline hermenutic has been forgotten.
Thanks, Nathaniel, for your response! Very insightful comments!
ReplyDeleteTo ask a clarifying question, are you suggesting that penal substitution (either in its themes of penalty, punishment, etc. or its currently developed model/theory), in reverting to viewing Christ through the Jewish law rather than vice versa, only finds its rise in late medieval theology? If so, I'm curious how you would read some lines from early Fathers such as Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius, St. Chrysostom, and a few others that are brought up on this post: http://www.mattoreilly.net/2011/03/penal-substitution-theological.html
Is it an issue of the starting point/approach? Should these statements only be seen in light of a larger framework? Furthermore, and perhaps related, how much affinity do you see between these early statements and PSA as it is so popularly espoused in evangelical Protestantism today? I'm sure that the translation of language from Greek or Latin to English requires some degree of separation, but I'm curious as to what other elements may differentiate these statements from how many people read them.
Thanks again, Nathaniel, for your insight and I hope to/look forward to hearing from you again!
Well, I would think that, without understanding the subtlety of what I am trying to get across, the book of Hebrews would be far more damning to my position than those quotes (though of course I don't believe that to be the case; 1:1-4 is quite clear on the ontological superiority of the Son).
ReplyDeleteI find the whole ad fontes methodology to be suspect as, in most cases, it depends heavily on equivocation. Take for instance his statement; "Note the precise use of penal substitutionary language: Christ suffered a penalty on our behalf." This is a word meaning fallacy. Just because Eusebius uses the word "penalty" doesn't mean that he is espousing the entire framework of PSA (hint: he's not). Most odius of Matt's uses is Athanasius. He points out specifically that Athanasius "developed the consequences of sin in terms of corruption leading to non-existence" but then fails to actually expound on his notion of Christ "fulling in death all that was required" according to this so-called development. For St Athanasius, the "punishment of death" is a metaphor for our rejection of life (itself a meditation on Acts 3:15 and the union theology of Romans; in fact, the whole work of On the Incarnation roughly follows the order and structure of Romans). He is using "punishment" and "requirement" allegorically, the same way he is using all of the OT scriptures. The same is true of Chrysostom and Augustine, they are using the themes of "punishment" and "requirement" as metaphors to explain the nature of man (that he doesn't exist by nature [though, honestly Augustine isn't as clear on this point as he ought to be; he has inherited the conclusion of Nicea without having to go through the thought process]).
Thus the main issue at stake is one of equivocation: do these illustrious thinkers mean the same thing as PSA when they say "punishment" or "penalty"? The answer, is no.
I appreciate your follow-up, Nathaniel! Your analysis of the problematic issue of equivocation is especially helpful. I hope my questions were not taken as inflammatory or defensive and, once again, I appreciate your thorough reply in regard to the statements Matt quoted in his post.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I may be missing "the subtlety of what [you are] trying to get across." Are you suggesting that the question in my post is asked from a dialectic standpoint rather than a hermeneutic of Christ?
I also suppose that the question is rather odd when we think about union with Christ in terms of baptism. Accordingly, Friday without Sunday is not a full baptism, but a drowning. I hope I'm not being flippant here.