Book review

Pierced for our Transgressions- Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution.

Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach

IVP, 2007                    372pp                          £16.00 pb.

ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6

In recent years the subject of penal substitution has found itself in the spotlight within the wider evangelical movement in both the United Kingdom and the United States. This has occurred in the form of controversy because some prominent writers and leaders associated with the movement have engaged in both an explicit and implicit attack on what was once considered to be a conditio sine qua non of basic evangelical belief. This volume is a contribution to that debate. It is an attempt to demonstrate that the doctrine of penal substitution is biblical, having a long and honourable historical pedigree within the Church, and is theologically coherent as well as being pastorally significant.

The writers have sought to produce a book which goes beyond a prolegomena to the subject but stopping short of a technical theological treatise because, in their own words, they ‘want to be understood by ordinary Christians and not only scholars.’ (p30). The aim is not only to explain the doctrine but defend it against its many detractors. This is one ambitious project!

The book is broadly divided into two parts.

In part 1 the authors set out to make the case for penal substitution. They begin by laying the biblical foundations drawing together and expounding material from the Old and New Testaments. Next, the doctrine is placed within a wider framework of biblical theology which also involves an excursus into the doctrine of the Trinity demonstrating that penal substitution, like any other major doctrine, does not ‘stand alone’ but constitutes an integral element of a coherent and comprehensive theological framework, supporting and being supported by other key biblical beliefs. There follows a short chapter on the pastoral implications of the doctrine and a longer chapter reviewing the historical heritage, demonstrating that the doctrine is not some later evangelical novelty but runs like a golden thread from the present day as represented by the doctrinal statements of organisations like the UCCF and Evangelical Alliance back to Justin Martyr in the second century with many of the giants of the church (Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas to name but a few) being amongst some of its clearest advocates. This historical survey is one of the most valuable aspects of the book.

Part 2 is a spirited defence of penal substitution against all on comers. It is difficult to think of a criticism which is not addressed with varying degrees of success, including a response to those from within the Reformed tradition, like D.B.Knox, who appear to deny ‘limited atonement’; something we shall come back to anon. The book ends with a helpful note to preachers on caution which needs to be exercised in using illustrations in relation to this doctrine- the possibilities and pitfalls.

As stated at the outset of this review, this is an ambitious project not only in having to grapple with a tremendous amount of material and variety of viewpoints but doing this in a way which is fair and rigorous, yet keeping to the aim of making it accessible to the ‘ordinary Christian.’  Perhaps it was too ambitious for this is a book which falls between two stools- not quite ‘popular’ in that the second part in particular becomes tedious because of the prosecution- defence format adopted and also because some of the folk who are criticised- especially those coming from the scholarly guild- might feel they have not been treated with the rigour they deserve (for there are so many of them!).

It has to be said that on the whole the book has an ‘undergraduate feel’ to it, that is, it reads like an extended undergraduate essay, a very good one to be sure, but with the result that one is left with the impression that this is a book lacking in depth, richness and creativity. This is particularly the case with the chapter on the pastoral implications of penal substitution when one is left wondering whether the authors have the pastoral experience which would qualify them in writing such a chapter. This contrasts sharply for instance with John Stott’s, ‘The Cross of Christ’ written towards the end of a lifetime of pastoral ministry, deep reflection and extensive reading and as such is a masterpiece. There is a warmth and depth in ‘The Cross of Christ’ that is lacking in this present volume- causing one to ask where is the ‘glory’ of penal substitution, why was I not excited by it? In the main what is said is accurate and ‘sound’ but lacks the theological and pastoral creativity which the subject deserves (for a book which does, read ‘The Glory of the Atonement’).

As such ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’ marks a departure from the trajectory of traditional British evangelicalism. The works of Stibbs, Packer, Stott and Lloyd Jones have that wonderful combination of spiritual warmth and intellectual adroitness- the ‘light and heat’ spoken of by Jonathan Edwards but which are sadly absent here. This is not simply a matter of style but substance.

The authors’ case would have been strengthened if they had engaged in some philosophical analysis of some key ideas- such as forgiveness and justice or the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. This is lacking and in its place there is the substitution of homely illustrations which unwittingly conveys the impression of shallowness and lack of depth and sophistication.

One also has to question the wisdom of the lengthy ‘prosecution-defence’ format of part 2. Not only does this make for tedium and something of an anticlimax to the book ending on something of a flat note (“We have not enjoyed the encounter with ‘other gospels’, but as we have read them we have been increasingly convinced of the need to reply. We would rejoice if some of those whose positions we have criticized would turn from them and embrace the glorious truth that out Lord Jesus Christ ‘bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness’ p.328”) – here ends the lesson! - It also raises the question as to whether it is the most effective way of engaging with opponents. This is a question which has been raised independently by David Ford of Cambridge University arguing that the setting for British theology is, ‘A setting which encourages the conversational, wisdom seeking mode of theology which is arguably dominant; and an emphasis on worship and prayer is also common. British theology's characteristic genre is not systematic theology but essays, articles and monographs, in which the theology is often mediated through engagement with philosophy, history, biblical studies, literature and the arts, the social sciences, politics, or the natural sciences.’ He criticizes a movement which ‘has so far been less conversational and more confrontational.’ (David Ford, ‘Radical Orthodoxy and the Future of British Theology.’ Scottish Journal of Theology 54 (2001): 385-404, p401.)  By way of contrast, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach adopt the approach of Turretin’s Elentic Theology. This is unlikely to appeal to and convince some of those who move in present day theological circles who are critical of this key doctrine.

In a discussion on limited atonement which specifically deals with the views of D.B.Knox, the theological dexterity of the authors is to be found wanting. The writers assert that this is not ‘a doctrine without a text’ a phrase which is a modification of one found in the essay, ‘Some Aspects of the Atonement’ by D.B.Knox. Passages are then cited which indicate that Christ ‘died specifically for his sheep.’(p272) But that is not quite what Knox says. He claims that ‘limited atonement in its commonly accepted modern use amongst Calvinists is a textless doctrine.’ He refers to the same texts as the authors of ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’ but makes the observation that while the Bible affirms that Christ laid down his life for his sheep, nowhere is the sentiment expressed negatively, i.e. that he died for his sheep only, or that redemption is to be spoken of the elect only. In this sense it is a ‘textless doctrine’. There is also 2 Peter 1 in which apostates are referred to who had been purchased. Knox’s mind is much more nimble and subtle than appears to be the case of his critics here, allowing for more carefully nuanced distinctions such as the terms redemption and salvation properly being applied to the elect but also applied in a secondary sense to all men. Knox certainly argues for particular or effective redemption (which he distinguishes from limited atonement) but argues that ‘limited substitution’ goes too far. The authors castigate Knox for agreeing at one point that, ‘The intended destination of the atonement was to effect and secure the forgiveness and salvation of the elect only and yet he apparently fails to realize that this is exactly what is affirmed by the doctrine of particular redemption which he proceeds to deny.’ (p277) This is simply not true. He clearly does recognise that this is what the doctrine implies. What he denies is the assertion that one cannot speak of Christ dying for all people: ‘limited’ atonement in that sense. So he affirms the positive- Christ died for the elect effectually without affirming the negative- he only died for the elect. He is happy to hold to the paradox as he believes this best does justice to the biblical data. Knox also marshals history in support- the Church of England catechism that ‘Christ redeemed me and all mankind’ and that the Synod of Dort did not affirm limited atonement.

A very odd argument is introduced by the authors against universal redemption: ‘The logic of universal redemption runs into serious difficulty just as it tries to explain why all are not saved. Christ died for the sins of all, this it affirms. But why is his death not effective for all? Because not all believe, comes the reply. But unbelief is a sin like any other and therefore Jesus death is surely sufficient to deal with it. So why are these people not saved? At this point the proponent of universal redemption must either opt for universalism (all will be saved) or say there are sins Christ’s death does not deal with’. (p274) Here the lack of philosophical sophistication in contrast to Knox is at its most apparent.  Unbelief as the opposite of faith is not some ‘sin’ which can simply be put alongside other sins, such as lying or stealing which Christ’s death can or cannot ‘deal’ with because of the peculiar and unique relationship of faith to salvation. There is an internal relation between faith and justification. Because of this analytical relation, faith is not so much an external instrument whereby a person is justified, it is part of what it means to be justified or saved. To repent of unbelief (positively to exercise faith) is part and parcel of being saved. At that point all previous unbelief is sufficiently covered by Christ’s death, as are all other sins. The argument set out above by the authors is no argument at all. In fact it goes too far for its reductio ad absurdum is that there cannot be the unforgivable sin.

Admittedly, this debate is only one small part of a larger book, and an aspect which is not integral to the doctrine of penal substitution as Arminians are as keen to affirm this as Calvinists. However, attention has been drawn to it as an example of the unconvincing way the authors engage with a friend and so one cannot help but wonder whether this will weaken their credibility in the eyes of some when it comes to dealing with some of their more stringent opponents.

One does not want to be unduly negative about this book. There are many things of value. It may come down to a question of expectations. Given the glowing commendations at the beginning of the book from the great and mighty in the evangelical world (running into ten pages in small print!) expectations were invariably going to be high. In relation to those one feels disappointed. As a book to be used for reference it will be of great benefit. Whether it is a sustained piece of work which will inspire the faithful and convince the critic, that is more doubtful.

Melvin Tinker.

St John’s Newland

Hull.