A Calvinist Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1

This paper seeks to exegete a single verse in Peter’s Second Epistle, namely 2 Peter 2:1. This verse presents, on the face of it, a difficulty for the Calvinist doctrine of particular redemption.[1] The difficulty, in essence, is that the verse seems to indicate, according to one interpretation, that Christ’s atonement was on behalf of people who are not truly Christians, and therefore by implication, his atonement must be on behalf of every person—all without exception.

We Calvinists understand the Scriptures, as a whole, to teach that Christ’s death was intended only to save the elect and so Christ did not die to redeem (or buy) the non-elect, such as the false teachers whom Peter mentions.

Issues of Translation and Meaning

 Let us begin by looking at the verse in question. Although the verse presents difficulties of interpretation, it does not present any real significant translation issues. The main English translations, across the theological spectrum, all translate the verse in a similar way. Here is a list of ten translations and their publication years, ranging from 1611 to 2017.

 

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (KJV – 1611)

 

But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ASV - 1901)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (RSV – 1971)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NRSV – 1989)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (NASB – 1995)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ESV - 2001)

 

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NIV – 2011)

 

But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. (NLT - 2015)

 

There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. (CSB - 2017)[2]

 

As can be seen, the translations are all very similar, particularly in the key words found in the middle of the verse, which are essentially this: ‘even denying the Master/Lord/Sovereign Lord that/who bought them.’ Within this phrase, the two important words are the noun that most translations render ‘Master’ and the verb that all the translations render ‘bought.’

We begin by looking at these two words important words.

‘Master’ or ‘Lord’ or ‘Sovereign’ is a translation of the Greek word δεσπότης (despotés). It is the root of the English words ‘despot’ and ‘despotism.’ It carries the connotation of an absolute ruler or sovereign, having power without limitations or restraints, Let us begin by looking at the verse in question.  though without necessarily having a negative connotation (unlike the English word).

The word is not very common in the New Testament, occurring just ten times, both as a singular and a plural. The meaning is not really in dispute in any of the occurrences. Slightly more open for discussion is who Peter is referring to as ‘Master’ or ‘Lord.’

The word was used to refer to a human master, i.e. an owner of slaves, though this meaning is rare in the New Testament. Or the word may refer to either God (the Father) or Christ the Son.

Of the other nine occurrences, the word refers to God or God the Father in four places (Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, 2 Timothy 2:21, Revelation 6:10), to human masters in four places (1 Timothy 6:1 and 6:2, Titus 2:9 and 1 Peter 2:18), and to Christ in one place (Jude 4).

Therefore, there is nothing inherent in the word that must mean Christ in 2 Peter 2:1. However, given that Jude 4 is probably the most important other reference, due to the close parallels between 2 Peter and Jude, this gives at least an indication that ‘Master’ in 2 Peter 2:1 may well refer to Christ himself.

The verse in Jude 4 reads: ‘For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (ESV).

From the context, it is not certain whether Peter had in mind God the Father or Christ the Son as the ‘Master’ in this verse. We keep an open mind on that, but to make our task as difficult as possible from a Calvinist perspective, let us assume—in line with the Jude parallel—that Master means Christ here.

The second translational issue concerns the word ‘bought’ which is the Greek word ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta), meaning indeed ‘having bought.’ It is an active aorist participle grammatically. It comes from the common verb ἀγοράζω (agorazo), to buy or purchase.  There can be no objection to the common English translations. It stems from the word for marketplace and from a person who goes to the marketplace.

A final brief word about the word ‘deny’ which is what these false teachers are said to do with their Master. The word is ἀρνούμενο (arnoumenoi), which is found in this form only here and in Jude 4 in the New Testament, but other forms of the verb are found at Matthew 10:33, Matthew 26:70 and 72, Mark 14:70, Luke 8:45 and Acts 3:14 among others. There is no dispute the word means ‘to deny’ or ‘to disown’ something or someone.

In terms of translation and meaning, therefore, the key phrase is relatively straightforward. The false teachers whom Peter identifies are said to ‘deny the Master who bought them.’

There is no dispute about the key phrase says. The issues, as we shall see, concern how we interpret this phrase.

Interpreting the Key Phrase

 We begin to explore the interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 agreed on what the verse says and how it should be translated. The ESV rendering is a good representative and is our starting point:

 There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

 The meaning of the text seems clear enough. Peter says that the church will experience false teachers within its midst, similar to the way that false prophets plagued the people of Israel in the Old Testament. These false teachers will bring in ‘destructive heresies’ and they will even deny the Master who bought them. That much is clear.

Assuming the Master is Christ, then the false teachers will in one way or another deny Christ. Perhaps they will deny his deity, perhaps his full humanity, perhaps some aspect of his atoning death or his resurrection. Most Christians would have no issue with understanding that there may be false teachers in the church who will deny important truths about Christ.

The question really concerns the meaning of the words ‘who bought them.’ What does it mean that Christ somehow ‘bought’ these false teachers.

For Arminians and others who affirm a universal atonement, there is no difficulty. For them, Christ died with the intention of saving all, the false teachers as much as the true believers within the church. The little phrase ‘who bought them’ would simply mean that even though Christ died to save them, they denied him.

Calvinists, who maintain the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption, cannot interpret the verse this way. In our view, the intention of the atonement was to save God’s elect and according to our view the atonement is entirely effective in its intent. In other words, all those for whom Christ died to save are saved by him.

It is not our aim in this article to argue for the doctrine of limited atonement. The resources arguing for the truth of this doctrine are many and thorough.[3] Instead, for our purposes, we are going to assume its truth and then show why 2 Peter 2:1 presents a problem uniquely for Calvinism and offer a solution to that problem.

The apparent difficulty is obvious. If Christ’s death was a definite atonement (or particular redemption) made for the elect—those chosen for salvation and who are actually saved—then why would Peter talk about these false teachers denying the Master who bought them? The verse is clear that the end of these false teachers is not salvation, but rather ‘destruction,’ a form of the noun ἀπώλεια (apólia), which means in this context spiritual or eternal destruction, ruin or loss.

In essence, the interpretative difficulty boils down to this: if Christ died only with the intention of saving the elect, and the atonement is always successful in its divine intent, how can Peter say that Christ ‘bought’ these false teachers if their fate is ‘swift destruction’?

The advocates of unlimited or universal atonement do not only find this verse easily comprehensible according to their view, but use the verse to argue against definite or limited atonement.

How does the Calvinist respond?

As we have seen, the meaning and interpretation of most of the verse is simple. These false teachers are not ultimately saved, but rather will be destroyed. And they deny the Master, whom we accept likely refers to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. The only real room for interpretative variation concerns the meaning of ‘bought’ in this verse. Does it refer to the atoning death of Christ and if so in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ these false teachers who are not saved? Or does ‘bought’ have some other meaning here that is plausible?

Based on the understanding that Christ’s atonement was specifically and definitely made with the intention of saving only the elect, Peter saying the false teachers were ‘bought’ must either refer to the atonement in some other way than that Christ died with the intention of saving these false teachers or must refer to ‘bought’ in some sense other than the atonement altogether.

This, we find are the precise lines of argument that Calvinists have indeed taken on the interpretation of this verse.

In precise form we find the verb participle ‘having bought’ in this verse, there are no other occurrences in the New Testament. Apart from the verse in question, there are some 29 other occurrences of the verb in various forms in the New Testament. Of these, 23 are instances where buy or bought is used in connection with the ordinary purchase of goods, land or services.[4] More significantly for our purposes, a further six occurrences relate to redemption or the atonement. The following are all the relevant verses with the key words marked in bold:

 

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.’ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, ESV)

 

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:23, ESV)

 

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. (Revelation 3:18, ESV)

 

And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ (Revelation 5:9-10, ESV)

 

And they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-4, ESV)

 

These verses are instructive in their way but do not settle the matter of interpreting 2 Peter 2:1. The two instances in 1 Corinthians clearly refer to the atonement, but as they seem to refer to those saved by it, they cast no light on the verse in question. The same can be said of three of the instances in Revelation 5 and 14. The verse in Revelation 3:18 falls neither under the verses referring to the atonement nor the larger group referring to normal purchases. In that verse, Christ himself speaks to the church at Laodicea to buy (metaphorically) from Christ what they need. Again, the verse does little to help our discussion.

In no other verse does ‘buy’ or ‘bought’ refer to individuals or groups that are not saved. Therefore, they cannot settle the matter of the use of ‘bought’ in 2 Peter 2:1.

Given the evidence in favour of limited or definite atonement, what could ‘bought’ mean in this verse then? If indeed the atonement is intended to be effectual only for the salvation of the elect, in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ the false teachers who are destined for swift destruction?

There are three main Reformed interpretations of this verse that seek to interpret it in a manner that harmonises with the truth of particular redemption.

The first interpretation, advocated by many Reformed theologians,[5] is that ‘bought’ may refer to the external and apparent ‘redemption’ of the visible church, of which the false   were a part, though not a part of the saved elect of God. In this view, by being outwardly part of the people of God, even these false teachers could be said to have been ‘bought’ by their association with the church, though not truly a part of it. They may even have received certain covenant blessings as being in outward covenant with God’s people, though not the blessing of salvation.

This view is supported by verses in the Old Testament, which speak of God having redeemed or bought Israel as a nation, even though the nation contained both believers and unbelieving Jews.[6]

The second interpretation regards ‘Master’ as referencing God the Father rather than Christ.[7] The basis for this view is that despotes more often refers to the Father than it does to Christ (see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24). In this view, the ‘bought’ refers to God’s deliverance of his people, again of whom the false teachers professed to be a part. The nation of Israel was said to be delivered or redeemed from slavery in Egypt, even though the nation included non-believers. Despite the pedigree of the exegetes who have taken this view, I do not consider it a convincing argument, particularly since the close parallel in Jude 4 clearly refers to Christ and not the Father.

The third interpretation sees ‘bought’ as applying to the professed faith of the false teachers.[8] It is as if Peter in a sense grants the false teachers profession. If they had believed in Christ, he would indeed have bought them and saved them. It is as if he is being ironic here. The false teachers deny the very Master they claimed had bought them.

Both interpretations one and three are similar and there is considerable overlap between them, in that Peter’s description applies to the outward profession and the visible church membership of these false teachers, rather than their true state before God, which was outside of salvation and heading for destruction in hell. It is no different to any preacher addressing a church congregation as the redeemed and saved, even though there may be false professors within the congregation.

Whether we take a pure form of interpretation one or three, or a blend of both, the important point is that it is perfectly consistent with the text to argue that Peter here is merely referring to matters from the point of view of outward covenant membership and profession of faith and not regarding the effectual, substitutionary redemption that only the actual elect enjoy.

This is not a case of special pleading for 2 Peter 2:1. In fact, throughout the Scriptures, there are numerous examples of places where the whole nation of Israel is spoken of as though they were God’s covenant people who enjoy salvation, even though the nation contained many unbelievers and only a faithful remnant.

Relevant verses include Deuteronomy 7:6-8 and Exodus 19:5-6 which speak of the whole nation being a ‘chosen people’ and ‘holy nation’ and as those ‘redeemed’ from Egypt, even though many were not truly in a saving relationship with God. The principle is that it is possible to be spoken of as ‘redeemed’ and ‘holy’ through outward covenant membership while remaining spiritually unregenerate.

Likewise, the covenant sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14) marked out a Jewish male as being in covenant with God, yet the Bible is clear that not all who are outward Israelites truly belong to God’s true Israel (Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8).

In the New Testament, the same broad principle of a distinction between outward appearance and inward reality persists. The case of Judas Iscariot is significant in that Jesus chose him to be as apostle and appointed him with the others in the Twelve to mission, yet Judas was never saved (see Matthew 10:1-8 and compare John 6:70-71).

Also, in Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, both believers and non-believers are shown to co-exist in the visible or outward manifestation of the kingdom (Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43).

The distinction between the outward or visible church consisting of all who profess the faith (and also their children) and the invisible church consisting of the elect only is taught in the Reformed confessions, including the Westminster Confession chapter 25.

To conclude, therefore, 2 Peter 2:1 does not require the abandonment of the doctrine of definite or limited atonement. It is fully consistent in the Reformed faith to speak of false professors of faith as being part of the visible church, the redeemed community, and so in that sense ‘bought’ by Christ, while acknowledging that they are part of the invisible church, the elect, or actually redeemed by Christ.

 

---

[1] Particular redemption is also frequently called ‘limited atonement’ or ‘definite atonement’ in Reformed theology, but the

[2] The translations are the following: KJV is the King James (or Authorised Version), ASV is the American Standard Version, RSV is the Revised Standard Version, NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version, NASB is the New American Standard Bible, ESV is the English Standard Version, NIV is the New International Version, NLT is the New Living Translation, and CSB is the Christian Standard Bible.

[3] Some works arguing for the truth of limited atonement include classic works such as The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen, For Whom Did Christ Die? by R. B. Kuiper, and The Potter’s Freedom by James White. The most comprehensive large-scale work on the subject is From Heaven He Came and Sought Her edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. In addition to these, any work on the Five Points of Calvinism including those by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, Edwin H. Palmer, W. J. Seaton, Robert Lewis Dabney, or John Piper. The relevant chapters of any Reformed systematic theology text such as those by Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, John Frame, Robert Letham or Robert Reymond also cover the subject.

[4] These include: Matthew 13:44 and 46; Matthew 14:15; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 25:9 and 10; Matthew 27:7; Mark 6:36 and 37; Mark 11:15; Mark 15:46; Mark 16:1; Luke 9:13; Luke 14:18 and 19; Luke 17:28; Luke 22:36; John 4:8; John 6:5; John 13:29; 1 Corinthians 7:30; Revelation 13:17; Revelation 18:11.

[5] This is the view put forward by John Owen and John Gill among others.

[6] See Exodus 15:16, Deuteronomy 32:5. Also see Romans 9:6.

[7] This is the view of John Murray and Robert Reymond among others.

[8] This is the view of John Calvin and Francis Turretin among others.

The Five Points of Calvinism - 3. Limited Atonement

The third of the "Five Points of Calvinism" is known in theology by several different names, including limited atonement, definite atonement or particular redemption.

Warning! This is another long post.

Historical Background, Terminology and the TULIP Acronym

Before we discuss limited atonement, this is probably a good time for a slight digression in to where the five points come form.

The five points of Calvinism are sometimes known by a five-letter acronym: T.U.L.I.P. This is perhaps appropriate as the original five points of Calvinism were formulated in the Netherlands! In the early 17th century, a group of Dutch Reformed ministers and theologians who were followers of Jacob Arminius, attempted to clarify what Reformed teaching should be on five points of doctrine. The group, known as the Remonstrants, put forward the following five articles for discussion in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands:

• Total Depravity - that we are affected by sin in all parts of our being.
  
• Conditional Election - that God's choice of who to save is based on him looking ahead in time, seeing who would have faith in Christ, and then choosing them.
  
• Unlimited or Universal Atonement - that Christ died for everyone without exception to make their salvation possible, but not to effectually save anyone in particular.
  
• Prevenient (but resistible) Grace - that God's grace is necessary but not sufficient for anyone to come to faith. Such faith is given to everyone so that come into a position where they can accept or reject Christ.
  
• Further study on whether it was possible for genuine believers to later fall away from the faith. They group was uncertain as to whether a person who has saving faith in Christ can later lose their salvation and fall away.

In response to this, the Reformed churches held a synod in the Dutch city of Dort (or Dordrecht) from 1618-19. After many discussions, which included representatives from Reformed churches from all over Europe, including Britain, the Synod of Dort produced a credal statement called the Canons of Dort. This document, along with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, forms "the Three Forms of Unity" the confessional basis of the Dutch Reformed churches (they are akin to the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith for Presbyterians).

The Canons of Dort contains "the five points of Calvinism" in their original form, though the Synod of Dort would not have recognised that term. For them, these are simply biblical truths. The Synod rejected the articles of the Remonstrants and set forth the following doctrines:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints.
  

This is by way of some historical background. The TULIP acronym is probably as much of a reason as any that this doctrine is often called limited atonement. The term is probably not the best and many people prefer the alternatives names of definite atonement or particular atonement.

The Differences Between Calvinists and Arminians on the Atonement

Sometimes the argument is presented as if Arminians believe Christ died for everyone and Calvinists believe Christ died for the elect only. That is accurate as far as it goes, but it is  probably not the best way of discussing the matter and is an oversimplification. 

Though any theological school of thought is never completely monolithic, most Calvinists, and certainly this writer, accepts that Christ's atonement is sufficient for all. By this we mean that Christ's death on the cross is sufficient to save everyone without exception. Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not mean that if Christ was going to save six billion people, he needed to suffer for six hours, but if he was going to save twelve billion people, he would need to suffer twice as long or be punished twice as hard. The fact is that what Christ endured would have been required whether he was going to save one single individual or everyone who ever lived universally. So the sufficiency of the atonement is not the issue. We all agree Christ's death is sufficient for everyone to be saved.

Closely related to this, most Calvinists (this writer included) also believe that the gospel call or offer is to be made to every sinner without exception and is genuine, sincere or "well-meant" to every sinner who hears it. The warrant for every sinner to accept God's command to repent and believe lies not in the extent of the atonement, but in the God's promise to all and the sufficiency of the atonement for everyone. The gospel offer to save everyone who believes and the promise that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved is a conditional promise. The promise to true for all who believe, but for none who do not believe. Christ is indeed offered to all sinners in the gospel and he will definitely save anyone who comes to him in faith, but only those who do so will be saved.

With these two points in mind, we can then define precisely what is meant by limited atonement or particular redemption as follows: it was the Triune God's plan and purpose that Christ died with the intention of accomplishing the salvation of the elect only or in other words that Christ should make atonement only for the sins of the elect, not for the sins of the non-elect. 

"Limited Atonement" as a term can sound as if Calvinists are seeking to diminish Christ's atonement, when in fact the very opposite is the case. It is for this reason that many Calvinists prefer the terms "Definite Atonement" or "Particular Redemption" meaning that we believe that Christ did not die for everyone in general, but for particular and definite people who are saved by his death. 

It is an unlimited or universal atonement that diminishes the power and effectiveness of Christ's saving work. If Christ died for everyone head-for-head, then why are all not saved? If Christ died for you and you are not saved, then the final say on salvation must be down to you, not to Christ. If Christ died for those who are lost as well as those who are saved, the cross is robbed of its saving power. The determining factor must lie in those who are saved.

The fact is both sides teach a kind of "limited atonement". Calvinists believe in a powerful atonement "limited" to a definite group of people who are saved by it. Arminians believe in an atonement "limited" in power, which is made on behalf of everyone but saves no one in itself without human free will accepting it.

The Biblical Case for Limited Atonement

As we shall see there are many verses which support viewing the atonement as being made for those who are saved by it (for example made for the elect, made for the Church, etc.). But the most important argument in favour of limited atonement lies not in "gotcha" verses, but in the broader tide of how the New Testament speaks of Christ's saving work. The point is that the New Testament consistently speaks of the cross in terms of it having an intention to achieve certain goals and that Christ completely accomplished those goals. The Arminian has to read in a measure of potentiality and provision, but not achievement or accomplishment, because they teach that the cross in itself does not achieve anything unless the sinner cooperates to "accept" the atonement.

If we accept the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, that Christ died as a substitute, taking the guilt and penalty for sins on himself and the wrath of God due for sin, this in itself implies limited atonement. But the great atonement words of the New Testament also point to a definite, intentional and successful atonement being made, not a mere provisional or potential atonement.

There are three biblical words that explain what happened theologically when Christ died on the cross: redemption, propitiation and reconciliation. Here are some verses which mention these concepts:

Redemption

Psalm 111:9 - "He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant for ever. Holy and awesome is his name!

Isaiah 43:1 - "But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: 'Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine."

Romans 3:23-24 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

1 Corinthians 1:30 - "And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption."

Ephesians 1:7 - "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace."

Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'."

Colossians 1:13-14 - "He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

Propitiation

Romans 3:25 - "Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

Hebrews 2:17 - "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

1 John 4:10 - "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Reconciliation

Romans 5:10-11 - "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 - "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation."

Colossians 1:21-22 - "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him."

All these verses speak of Christ actually accomplishing something in his death. To put it bluntly, if Christ redeemed everyone, propitiated the wrath of God for everyone, and reconciled everyone to God, the natural conclusion would be universalism, that everyone without exception is saved. The natural conclusion would not be that these are only provisionally made and are not effective until activated by human faith. This is to change what the New Testament actually claims about Christ's death. It is eisegesis to read every passage through the lens of autonomous human free will being the determining factor for Christ's death achieving what the New Testament simply states is achieved by it.

With this in mind, let us look at the verses that explicitly teach that Christ died for a particular group of people. If Christ's died for everyone, you need to ask yourself why the Bible speaks so often of the atonement being for a group that is obviously less than everyone.

Isaiah 53:5, 8, 11 - "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed...By oppression and judgement he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?...Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."

Here the "we," "our" or "us" cannot be everyone without exception otherwise the implication would be universal salvation. What is said is achieved by the suffering Servant's atonement, not merely made available. In verse 8, the text explicitly refers to this being for "my people" not "everyone without exception."

Matthew 1:21 - "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

The verse is explicit that Jesus came to save his people from their sins, not everyone without exception.

Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 - "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 26:28 - "For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

These verses are explicit that Christ's death was for "many" which means for a lot of people, but does not mean for everyone without exception.

John 10:11, 14-15, 26-30 - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep...I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep...But you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

In this passge Christ speaks of laying down his life for his sheep. It is plain from the context that the sheep are not everyone without exception. The sheep are those who trust and follow Christ as Saviour and Lord and are contrasted with those who do not believe. Christ implies he does not lay down his life for them.

John 17:6-9 - "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours."

In this passage, not only does Christ imply that his work is for a particular group of people, "the people whom you have me out of the world" (cf. John 6:37-40) but he explicitly says there are people for whom he will not even pray or intercede, never mind make an ineffectual atonement for.

Acts 20:28 - "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."

This verse states that Christ's death was for "the church of God" not everyone. As an aside, this verse also teaches that Christ was God.

Romans 8:32-34 - "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us."

2 Corinthians 5:18-21 - "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Galatians 1:3-4 - "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father."

Titus 2:14 - "Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works."

It is important to read passage like this contextually. In Paul's letters "we" or "us" is not everyone, but refers only to Christian believers, the recipients of Paul's letters. When read in that light, it is clear that Paul believes Christ died exclusively for the elect, the Church, the justified. 

Ephesians 5:25 - "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

Another verse stating that Christ died to save the Church—the body of Christian believers—and not everyone without exception.

Hebrews 2:17 - "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

As with Matthew 1:21 we have already looked at, this verse teaches that Christ's saving work of propitiation was made for the sins of the people, i.e. God's people, not everyone without exception.

Hebrews 9:15, 28 - "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant...so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Not only does this passage once again speak of Christ dying for "many" rather than everyone, it is also plain that as "mediator of a new covenant" Christ has died for "those who are called" which implies a smaller group than everyone without exception. In fact, it is the same group elsewhere called the Church, his people or the elect.

1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

Not only does this verse once again speak of "us" (believers) as opposed to everyone, but it also expresses how Christ's death is no mere provision or potentiality, but actually brings people to God.

Revelation 5:9 - "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."

The very fact that this verse explicitly says that Christ's death was a ransom for people from every part of humanity must mean that the ransom was not for everyone without exception. Otherwise, John should simply have written "you ransomed every tribe and language and people and nation." He didn't write that because Christ didn't do that.

What About the "World", "All" and "Everyone" Verses?

We have focused on the positive case for limited atonement in this post. Some may object, what about the verses that seem to teach that Christ died for everyone, all or the world? For the Calvinist exegesis of these verses please see the recent series of posts called "Dealing with the 'Arminian' texts here, here, here and here.

The general answer is that, in context, all of these verses either refer to some variation of "all without distinction" rather than "all without exception" or that the verses merely tell us that there is a sense in which God loves all and may be said to have a desire towards the salvation of all which does not extend to a saving or electing love for all or a decision to decree the salvation of all. There is a mystery here beyond the scope of human reason or logic, but it seems clear enough that though God loves all and has a desire that all be saved (by heeding the gospel offer to come to Christ in faith and repentance), yet his sovereign decree is to save only the elect and reject the rest of humanity for salvation.

None of these verses, read in context, contradicts the overwhelming case for particular redemption we have presented here.

The Meaning and Translation of "Hilasterion" in Romans 3:25

Paul's Letter to the Romans is a key part of the New Testament, the letter in which the gospel or good news is given its fullest explanation. Within this letter, the section in Romans 3:21-26 is central to the meaning of the doctrine of salvation and within that section verse 25 is a key verse. 

The focus of our discussion is on the meaning and translation of this word "hilasterion" in this verse. 

1. Description of the Possible Translations

While we confess that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:16) meaning that all of Scripture comes from God, we recognise that not all the God-breathed Scriptures are equally important. Obviously, for example, the crucifixion and resurrection narratives of the Gospels are more important to the people of God and the message of salvation than say a genealogy of names in Genesis or Chronicles. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is one of the most important books in the New Testament because it is where we find the fullest exposition of Paul’s gospel. Within Romans, chapter 3 verse 25 is a key verse. And within that verse the key word is ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion). This word is the focus of this paper.

The verse reads as follows (author’s translation)—from verse 24 to give the context:

24 Being declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a hilasterion, by his blood, to be received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins committed beforehand.

The correct translation of this word "hilasterion" into English has a long history of controversy and debate. English translations of the word divide into five main categories as explained below.

a. Mercy Seat or Atonement Cover

The first group of translations sees hilasterion as a direct reference to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, traditionally known as the ‘mercy seat’ or other more descriptive translations such as ‘atonement lid’ or ‘atonement cover.’ 

This view sees hilasterion as the direct Greek equivalent of the Hebrew, כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporeth) which is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, commanded by God to be made (Ex. 25:17 ff.), the place where God’s presence would rest and make atonement for the sins of his people. 

Translations taking this approach include the following:

God presented him as the mercy seat by his blood, through faith (CSB)

whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood (Darby)

whom God publicly displayed as the atonement seat through faith in his blood (EHV)

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith (NET)

Whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory covering, through faith in his blood. (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible)

Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood. (Concordant Literal Version)

This interpretation sees Paul’s argument being that just as the mercy seat on the ark was the place where the people’s sins were taken away, God’s wrath removed, and God’s reconciliation with his people established, so the cross of Jesus Christ was the reality of that Old Testament type. It should be noted that the last two translations above make it explicit that the kapporeth being referred to is much more than merely the lid of the covenant box or ark, it has deep theological meaning—it is a propitiatory shelter or covering—meaning it is the place where God’s wrath against sin is dealt with and taken away or removed.

b. Propitiation

The second group of translations does not link hilasterion directly to the mercy seat, but instead sees it as a reference to the means or place of propitiation (the means by which or place where sin is taken away, wrath turned aside and justice is satisfied). The translations which take this approach includes some of the most commonly used literal translations in English, as follows:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. (KJV)

whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood. (ASV)

whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith. (NKJV)

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (ESV)

whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (NASB 1995)

whom God put forward as the means of propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (Moffatt)

Two versions agree that the hilasterion is a propitiation, but rather than use this technical term which would doubtless be difficult to understand for many English readers, they explain the concept of propitiation:

God presented him as the one who would turn aside his wrath taking away sin through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 marginal reading)

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. (NLT 1996)

c. Expiation

Some English translations, particularly it must be admitted, translations at least influenced by liberal theology, which have a tendency to deny or play down the concept of the wrath of God, see in hilasterion a reference to the taking away of sin, but not the turning aside or satisfying God’s wrath. For these translations, rather than use ‘propitiation’ with its connotation of appeasing or satisfying wrath, they use the word ‘expiation’ which connotes only to the taking away or removal of sin, without reference to wrath.

This position is found in the following versions:

whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (RSV)

For God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his death, effective through faith. (REB)

whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood. (NABRE)

d. Reconciliation

A few English translations take hilasterion to refer not to the expiating of sin or the propitiating of wrath, but to the end result of expiation and propitiation, which is the reconciliation of God and sinners and believe this was Paul’s point in Romans 3:25. These versions include the following:

Whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Geneva)

For God showed him publicly dying as a sacrifice of reconciliation to be taken advantage of through faith. (Goodspeed)

whom God purposed for reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Jubilee Bible 2000)

e. Other ‘Non-Committal’ Options

Finally, some translations, either for reasons of simplicity for the reader or from a desire to avoid the controversies surrounding the historic and ongoing ‘expiation vs propitiation’ debate, opt for a more general translation such as ‘sacrifice of atonement’ which could allow for either expiation, propitiation, or indeed reconciliation, which ‘sacrifice of atonement’ at least hints at.
    Versions taking this approach include the following:

Through his faithfulness, God displayed Jesus as the place of sacrifice where mercy is found by means of his blood. (CEB)

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 main text)

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. (NIV 2011)

For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. (NLT 2004)

whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (NRSV)

2. Assessment of the Translation Options

Of these five possible approaches, I think there are three we can dismiss quite easily and two that have strong claims.

The translations I would set aside first are the last three. To take the last one first, translating "hilasterion" as "sacrifice of atonement" is only a very broad attempt to explain the concept behind the word. Although "hilasterion" does imply an atoning sacrifice, this does not adequately explain the word's meaning and could be viewed as something of a "cop out".

Likewise, although the "hilasterion" can lead to reconciliation between the offended and the guilty party, the word does not itself refer to reconciliation.

Finally, the translation "expiation" or "expiating sacrifice" should be rejected as it does not cover the full menaing of "hilasterion". Expiation refers to the removal of guilt, but that is only half of the meaning of "hilasterion". As has been well-explained by Leon Morris, John Stott and others writing on the atonement, "expiation" has been favoured by theologians who do not believe that the atonement involves dealing with the wrath of God against sinners. But one of the key aspects of a "hilasterion" is appeasing or satisfying God's wrath.

It is for this reason that the word has traditionally been translated as "propitiation" (meaning either the means of propitiation or the place of propitiaiton). Propitiation implies both expiation (removal of guilt for sin) and the turning aside of God's wrath against sinners. For this reason, "propitiation" or an explanatory phrase meaning the same found in the NIV 1984 margin or the 1996 NLT is a good translation as far as I am concerned. The only problem with it, it might be argued, is that the word is not well understood by many readers. Chambers Dictionary defines "propitiate" as meaning "to appease or placate (an angry or insulted person or god)" and it is this appeasing, placating or satisfying divine anger or wrath that is the key aspect of "hilasterion" that most other translations omit or downplay.

Some scholars believe that Paul was not referring to a place or means of propitation in a generic sense, but rather they see this as a clear alluding to the Old Testament "mercy seat" or "atonement cover" - the lid of the ark of the covenant, the place where the people's sins were taken away and the wrath of God averted or appeased or placated. Some translations use "propitiatory cover" or "proptiatory shelter" to try to cover both concepts.

It is a difficult judgment whether to translate in a more general sense of "propitiation" or the more specific sense of "mercy seat" or "propitiatory cover". We cannot be entirely certain which of the two Paul had in mind. The difference is a translation problem, but not a theological one because both have the same meaning: the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross took away the guilt of sin and turned aside the wrath of God against sin by taking the punishment directly in his own flesh. 

If I had to pick one, I would go with the more general term "propitation" as I am not certain Paul was solely making an Old Testament allusion to the "mercy seat" when writing to a largely Gentile church in Rome. Although "hilasterion" was used in the Greek Septuagint as the translation of the mercy seat (the atonement lid on the ark of the covenant), "hilasterion" is a broader theological concept than the noun for the covenant box lid, and so on balance I think the wider theological term "propitiaton" or an explanation of what "propitiaiton" means is preferable in our English translations, with the single word "propitiation" being more suited for formal equivalent translations and a phrasal explanation such as "the way of turning aside God's wrath and taking away sin" being more suitable for functional equivalent translations.

The King Dies

Please read Matthew 27:33–53
 
Today is Good Friday, the most solemn day in the Christian year when we mark the crucifixion and death of Jesus. At a purely human level, the cross remains a shocking and sad event. The death of a young man, murdered by his powerful enemies, convicted of a crime he didn't commit, tortured to death, an idealist who paid the ultimate price for this principles of love, justice and freedom. Because of all this I hesitated to say that Christians "celebrate" Good Friday. We commemorate it and we are profoundly moved by it, but it is hard to celebrate a man's bloody and brutal murder. These are what we might call the "human interest" elements to the story and they tend to be the focus of dramatic treatments of Christ's death whether in paintings or in cinema.

Yet the Bible's focus is not so much on the human interest elements as on the theological meaning of the death of Jesus. It is in the profound spiritual truths of what Christ's death accomplished as atonement or reconciliation with God, expiation of sin, propitiation of wrath, redemption from slavery, victory over Satan, release from punishment and deliverance from death (to name just some things that the New Testament says the cross of Jesus Christ has done for us) that the death of Jesus finds its true meaning. It is because of what the cross means for broken and guilty humanity that it is transformed from the waste of a good life to the greatest use of a good life that has ever or could ever happen.

He died that we might be forgiven,
He died to make us good,
That we might go at last to heaven,
Saved by His precious blood.

The question the death of Jesus poses to you today is this: will his death have been in vain for you or not? Because the true meaning of the death of Jesus can only be fulfilled in the lives of those who are in spiritual union with him, and the benefits of what Christ has achieved on the cross are only shared with those who want them. Do you want forgiveness for your past and transformation for your future? Do you want a relationship with God through Jesus? That's what Christ is even now offering you through the cross. To accept it he only looks for you to trust and follow him in faith. This Good Friday, let the King's death change your life forever.

The James Bond Gospel

I don't know if you like Bond movies? They used to be a staple on British television over the festive period, though maybe not so much these days. The plot in most of the Bond films is quite straightforward. For me, Goldfinger is the archetypal Bond film and most subsequent Bond films use the same basic plot. An evil genius has a plan to take over the world and James Bond has to stop him (or her? though I don't think there has been a female Bond villain yet).

This plot line is actually a pale reflection of the reality of what the Bible tells us has happened to the world. An evil super-villain, a spiritual being called the devil or Satan, rebelled against God at some point before human beings came into existence. Later, when the first human beings were created, he schemed successfully to lead them into rebellion against God as well and give up their position of God's stewards and viceroys over creation to come instead under his evil influence, control and ownership as slaves of sin. Satan's work was like unleashing a terrible virus into the atmosphere that would then infect and poison the whole of creation.

Something is wrong with the world and with us. Deep down we know it. All human beings are "not quite right." We're not the people we feel we should be. Often we're not the people we even want to be ourselves. The Bible tells us we're right to feel that way. We're not imagining it. And the Bible calls the thing that's wrong with us is a deadly disease called "sin."

Sin is like a virus that infects and affects every part of us - our bodies, our brains, our hearts - and all their functions including our thoughts and our feelings. It is a disease that is, humanly speaking, incurable, and it only has one prognosis - death. In biblical terms, "death" is not just physically dying, but an eternal state of "un-life." Not only that, the symptoms of this disease ravage our behaviour and manifests as pride, cruelty, anger, hatred, lust, envy and many other utterly horrible human traits. All the particular evils trace their origin back to the disease of sin that has infected humanity, and we every single one of us catches the disease from birth. It is inevitable for everyone born into this world that they will be infected, even if there is a latency period during childhood before the disease goes "full blown".

Another horrible aspect of the disease is that it is completely debilitating. We are paralysed by sin. Unable to find a cure. Unable to even want to be cured.

That's the position we all find ourselves in. That's the way the world has always been right from the earliest period of human history.

The story of the Old Testament in the Bible is largely about God calling on one nation, Israel, to be the people through whom the disease of sin would be dealt with and through whom the world would be put right. It is also the story of how that people failed again and again in their mission, finding out that they themselves were infected with the same disease as all the other nations.

The New Testament tells the story of how God came to earth himself, which it turns out had always been the plan, in the person of his Son, his "second self" who was born and lived as a faithful Israelite called Jesus of Nazareth. He showed the character and the wisdom of God, and then in his death he took on himself the entire disease, to rid the world of it once and for all, thereby defeating the Evil Mastermind who was behind it all. He rose from the dead so that not only would the disease have no more power over him, but that the cure he had created and the immunity from it he had gained could be passed on to everyone who wants it for themselves. Not only that, but once we are given the medicine, the power of the disease is broken and we start the long process of recovering from the effects of the disease, knowing that one day we will be totally free of it and able to live forever, even though our body goes through death.

So how do you receive the cure? It's very simple. You trust in Jesus to save you and ask him come into your life and cure you. When you ask him, he will do it. Then you become his friend and stay in a loving friendship with him forever, getting to know him, learning to see what a life without the disease looks like and trying to copying him in your life. You'll also find that there's a great crowd of people who have also been saved and now live in a new kingdom. The group is called the church, which means "the gathered ones." The church gets together to thank Jesus, meet his Father who is now our Father too, and to be energised by his Spirit to live as we should and deep down really want to live. Among other things, we continue to work to help other victims of the disease in practical ways in this world and spread the good news that there is a cure available for everyone.

The Gospel and the Message of Salvation

You would think that one of the simplest questions that any evangelical Christian would be able to answer is this: What is the gospel?

After all, isn't that the very defining aspect of everyone who identifies himself or herself as an evangelical, that they are committed to the evangel, the gospel?

A number of scholars have pointed out that what evangelicals usually call "the gospel" is not quite the same as what the biblical writers meant by "gospel". Examples of this would include N. T. Wright and Scot McKnight among others. Evangelicals tend to think that the gospel is exactly the same thing as the message of salvation – a step-by-step guide for how sinners can be forgiven, find peace with God and start a new life – but these scholars distinguish between what is specifically meant by "the gospel" itself in the New Testament and the message of salvation which is always one of the New Testament's great implications of the gospel. But the call to trust and follow Jesus in order to find salvation is not the "gospel" itself as narrowly and specifically defined in the New Testament.

The gospel or good news is the proclamation or announcement of a fact, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the King of Israel, died for our sins and has risen from the dead to be the rightful the Lord and Saviour of the world. The gospel is in fact the story of Jesus which shows that he is the King and Saviour of the world.

The message of salvation is obviously closely linked with the gospel, but not identical to it. The message of salvation for us flows out of the story-fact that Jesus came to earth as Saviour and Lord.

The salvation message is that no one is right with God as they are, everyone needs Jesus to save them because he is the King and Saviour of the world, and Jesus is willing to save anyone who comes to him. The gospel or good news is the proclamation of who Jesus is and what he has done. Both parts are important because it is only because of who he is that he could do what he did and it is only because of what he did as well as who he is that his gospel can then become our gospel – good news for people like you and I who are not right with God and need salvation.

In my place condemned he stood

For me no verse of any hymn quite sums up what Good Friday is all about for the Christian believer better than this one from Man of Sorrows by Philip P. Bliss:

Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
in my place condemned He stood;
sealed my pardon with His blood:
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

This is why what would otherwise be the darkest day in history is forever "Good" Friday to the faithful, the day our salvation was achieved through the cross. And the darkness merely proved to be the prelude to the brightest day in history when Christ rose from the dead three days later on Easter Sunday.

Simply Jesus

Simply Jesus
Tom Wright
SPCK, London 2011

I can't help but thinking that N. T. Wright is getting distracted from finishing the long-awaited massive volume on Paul in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series as writes more and more popular level books. So far we've had Simply Christian, Surprised by Hope, Virtue Reborn and several volumes to complete the New Testament for Everyone series. Now in that same vein comes Simply Jesus.

The book aims to answer three simple, yet central and profound questions for the Christian faith: who was Jesus, what did he do, and why does it matter?

There is little new here for those who have read some of Wright's previous work, but it was still gripping reading to see the arguments laid out in such a straightforward manner in this book.

For Wright, Jesus is very much the Jewish Messiah who "embodied Israel's God" (I think that's a direct quote - if not, Wright certainly says something very similar). He came to do for Israel what Israel could not do for itself - namely be God's light for the Gentiles and the rightful Lord and King of the whole world. Through this, he is able to bring salvation to everyone who has faith in him.

As we might expect, Wright takes the historical background to Jesus' life and ministry very seriously. He talks about a "perfect storm" in the form of a combination of Jewish expectations of deliverance by the Messiah, the power of imperial Rome, and God's strange and powerful purposes for history all coming together at the time of Jesus' life and shaping Christ's life, death and resurrection.

One thing I noted in this book is how firmly Wright seems to have moved towards the Christus Victor view of the atonement as the primary view, although not denying that penal substitution is also a motif in the New Testament, though a secondary one. I would perhaps take issue with this. I do not think Christ could be victorious without penal substitution.

Though most of the book explores who Jesus is and what he came to do, I actually found the short third section on what it means for us to say that Jesus is the king of the world in practical terms to be the most challenging and interesting part. Perhaps this is because I was already familiar with most of what Wright says in the earlier sections from his other books. But this third section where Wright begins to apply his views to normal life was new to me and fascinating. I was certainly excited by Wright's invitation to join in and play our part in God's work of building his kingdom.

In the end, it still seems to me that Wright says the very same things that thoughtful evangelical Christians have always said, but it's as if the thoughts are translated into a different language, using different words at times. This explains how he can both be lambasted by conservatives as a closet liberal and by liberals as a closet fundamentalist! Truth is he is neither, but in good Anglican tradition, he occupies middle ground, yet middle ground much more familiar to evangelicals than liberals I would say as he always seeks to honour what the Bible teaches over all traditions. This is very evident in the extended metaphor of the perfect storm he uses in the first part of the book, where he seeks to show that neither the liberal Jesus of social action, nor the conservative Jesus of deity and salvation in heaven do justice to the New Testament's full-orbed doctrine of Christ and his work.