Search

This article is a reflective review of Simon Gathercole’s book, Defending Substitution, in which he defended the position that Paul held a substitutionary position of atonement. That position contends that Jesus died ‘instead of sinners’, replacing them in his death. I primarily offer an exegetical critique based on an Old Testament understanding of Paul’s language, in which I do not find a mechanism of substitution. That critique is followed by some reflections on why I find Gathercole’s substitutionary view to fall short of the portrayal of God’s offers of grace and atonement that are found in the OT and picked up on by the New Testament writers as they use the OT language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the biblical readings for May 6, 2007. She asserts that apostle Peter's growing understanding of the will of God is integral to the interpretation of the tale of the let down sheet. She explains how apostle Luke continually shifts the meaning of the conversion of Peter, demonstrating changes in the understanding of the latter and the hearers of the tale. She cites the significance of the remarks made by Jesus Christ during the Last Supper as Judas leaves to hand him over to the authorities.

The author reflects on the gospel of John 12:20-33 for Lent in March 29, 2009 which deals with the time of suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. He says that the Jews are against with Jesus Christ throughout the gospel and that He is misunderstood and destined for death. The gospel relates the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane with no agony. In the author's view, the church must be on the side of the lost and forsaken people at a time when the culture is described as self-absorbed and self-advancing.