Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration

William lane Craig is not just a good philosopher, he is also a great writer. The book links a number of areas of the atonement to create a well thought out argument that is Historical, philosophical, and theological based on the biblical data. I love the countless citations he has implemented in order to further the readers research on the topic. Though he is a scholar he writes coherently for laymen like me and starts with the biblical data, flows into the patristic fathers, Middle age, reformation, then makes cases from philosophy of law on the soundness of the atonement. One can also admire the objections and counter objections he brings up with certain philosophical views.If you are struggling with understanding or even articulating a case for the atonement, i highly recommend to start with this book.

Craig makes a rock solid case for the biblical doctrine of Penal Substitutionary atonement. He also traces the doctrine conceptually back into the Fathers conceptually. Best book on the atonement I've ever read. Brings together all the biblical portraits of Christ's work on the cross, explaining what his work actually achieved for humanity.

Fantastic! Craig captures quite efficiently the multifaceted motifs of the atonement!

An excellent resource for those who want to understand the atonement.

Craig’s objective with this book is to “articulate the core of an atonement theory which is both biblical and philosophically coherent (p. viii)”. A key question he asks is, “how does the death of Christ achieve the reconciliation of condemned sinners with God? (p. 2)”. On a positive note, the author has extensive footnotes and references to many sources as part of documenting the history of atonement theories, other atonement research, and additional points of interest. The topic is investigated from three angles, 1. the biblical data, 2. the history of atonement theories, and 3. philosophical considerations (p. 9,10). In pursuing these angles, he presents what is perhaps the most full-orbed defense of the penal substitution atonement theory available in a single tome, a very useful resource for those who wish to defend or analyze this atonement model. Craig’s presuppositions in this endeavor are numerous, as he is firmly committed to the penal substitutional atonement theory. He assumes (by never questioning) that the translations he uses are correct, that the “starting table” of the doctrine is sacrifice (p. 15), that the arrangement is forensic (legal) (p. 77), that both sins and righteousness can be accounted (p. 62), credited (p. 73), or imputed (p. 267) to persons, that a ransom is paid to God (p. 85, 215), that God cannot merely forgive (p. 87, 257), but he could have waived the owed punishment (p. 261), and that God’s justice is retributive (p. 71, 107, 261). Craig’s methodology leads him to various conclusions. Since he believes that righteousness is “a monadic property bestowed by God…given human persons by God (p. 55,56)”, he concedes that, “neither pardon nor acquittal effects a moral transformation in the life of the wrongdoer (p. 211)” and thus does not transform our character nor makes us virtuous (p. 234). Atonement is therefore a legal, forensic, matter of position and status. The atoned person “is accorded a new legal status (p. 74,77)”. This legal process is said to be achieved because “God legally imputed our sins to Christ (p. 75,77)” by means of a “vicarious punishment to a person who did not deserve it, to whom no guilt or liability to punishment was imputed (p. 75)”. Christ “was declared legally guilty before God. Therefore, he was legally liable to punishment (p. 182)”. In order to make this false accusation, “God chooses to treat Christ as if he had done those acts. Such language is formulaic for the expression of legal fictions (p. 183, 184)”. Craig then gives two examples of false accusation court cases which were the means to achieve a degree of justice (p. 185, 186), as if God would have no objection to engaging in this level of unethical, legal shenanigans. While I do seriously commend Dr. Craig for his deep and diligent research and his biblical and philosophical attempts to defend the penal substitutionary atonement theory, a careful reader should be able to discern that there are multiple problems which must be overcome or dismissed to defend it. In the end, this book exposes that it requires numerous biblical words to be poorly translated, while additional words like “sacrifice” are added to numerous texts which he uses (p. 32,33), and he then dismisses those who would take a fresh translation check (p. 55). The Bible is also being read while neglecting to research the original Hebraic understanding of atonement. This reduces atonement to a legal transaction, through legal fictions which merely result in relabeling the sinner as being legally righteous. In this model there is no genuine relational forgiveness, rather, the forgiveness is understood as “much more akin to legal pardon than to forgiveness as typically understood (p. 217)”, reducing God’s forgiveness to the level of a non-personal bureaucratic status. God in this view can be reduced to a gracious bureaucrat who “demonstrates His covenant faithfulness by forgiving or simply overlooking former sins (p. 70)”.

William Lane Craig is often said to be the #1 apologist alive today. I consider him a friend personally, and yet I honestly haven’t read many of his books at this point. It’s not because I am opposed to him in some way. It’s just that for whatever reason, I haven’t. When I got this book in the mail though, I figured I should see what it was like. Most of Craig’s works I know of have been apologetics works. While there is apologetics in this to a degree, this one is more theological.I was also curious because I am a fan of N.T Wright and I couldn’t help but think of this being a response in part to his book on the atonement. Thus, I dove in. I will be giving a brief summary of what the book is about and then listing things I liked about it followed by areas that I had some questions about.The book is divided into three parts. The first is the biblical data, which makes sense. When forming a doctrine from the Bible, the Bible is usually seen as a good place to go to. Craig actually begins in the Old Testament, which I also thought proper, and looks at topics like sacrifice and the suffering servant before proceeding to how this is fleshed out in the new.From there, he goes to history. What do the Fathers of the church say about the atonement? What was said in the medieval period? What happened after the time of the Reformation?Finally, we get into probably what is the most unusual part of the book, though interesting and helpful, and that is the philosophy of the atonement. In this, there is not only a look at the philosophy surrounding justice and mercy, but also around law courts. There are several instances of American law cited and questions of topics such as how do pardons work.So for positives here, Craig is indeed very thorough. Most people would not think of including something like this last section in a book on the atonement, but Craig does. He also does include some words on the New Perspective on Paul. It’s food for thought, but at this point, I am not ready to say the NPP doesn’t work.On page 206, there is a wonderful paragraph on the necessity of the crucifixion and the resurrection. This helps show the connection between God dealing out justice and God being merciful on us. There is too little of this in Christian thinking today in that we don’t see the difference the resurrection makes beyond “Christianity is true.”As I said earlier, I appreciate Craig going to the Old Testament. The Old Testament is where our faith begins and too often we dispense of it. Most Christians I meet who are biblical scholars are New Testament scholars. Nothing wrong with being one, but we need specialists in the Old Testament as well.I also did appreciate the final section. It was interesting looking at the atonement through the eyes of jurisprudence and seeing how modern notions of law can help us see the way the doctrine works. I also appreciate the philosophical objections being dealt with such as penal substitution being immoral.However, there are some points I wish to raise that I would like to see addressed.First, when we get to the New Testament data, I think there is an overemphasis on Paul. I am not opposed to Paul, but when you look in the references, you will find more references to Romans than you will to all the Gospels combined. While I do not consider it Pauline, at least exclusively, the same applies to Hebrews as well. On this point, I think Wright does come out ahead since he does spend more time in the Gospels with the direct words of Jesus.On p. 167, Craig says it seems odd that someone can be forgiven for their sins and punished for their sins. It does, but I immediately remembered King David’s first son with Bathsheba. David was explicitly said he was forgiven, but he was also told immediately that the child born to him would die. It looks like then that David was forgiven and still punished. I would like to see this fleshed out.I would have liked to have seen more interaction with N.T. Wright. Wright is the most prolific writer who has put out something on the doctrine and while he was cited at times, I would have liked to have seen an extensive interaction with him.Finally, I thought the discussions of modern law were interesting, but I kept being struck by a concern in that. If we were in England, would we see English law? Would we see German law in Germany? American law is the category we think in, but does it follow that it’s applicable to the biblical doctrine?I would have liked to have seen interaction with law in the world of Jesus, such as the law of Caesar or the law of the Sanhedrin. How did justice work in those courts? How did Caesar dole out justice and mercy both? Could Caesar give a pardon and how would that work? After all, these are the categories the biblical world was set in. I am not saying that there is no correspondence to modern law, but I can be skeptical. In a future work, I would prefer to see law in the ancient world look at.That being said, Craig’s work is a great defense of penal substitution in particular, but I think also rightly recognizing there are some elements of other atonement theories. It is quite likely one will not cover everything. Those wanting a good resource on the doctrine of the atonement owe it to themselves to read Craig’s book.In Christ,Nick PetersDeeperwatersapologetics.com

What a clever fellow Dr William Lane Craig is.How can a subject so simple be turned into a treatise so complicated - but he did it.He puts a lot of effort into itReminds me of Tom Thumb who said what a clever boy I am.

A very readable and great interaction with the atonement debate as of 2020.