SouthwesternCollegeWinfield,Kansas

WHYDIDJESUSCOMETOEARTH?RETHINKINGTHEWAYINWHICHWEVIEWJESUS’PURPOSEINCOMINGTOEARTH

AThesisProjectPresentedinPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsoftheCourse

THEO595PAThesisby

RyanRichardNyquist,BAAugust17,2014

Approvals

______________________________________LeadFaculty,MinistryPrograms

______________________________________DirectorofAcademicAffairs

______________________________________VicePresidentforAcademicAffairs

i

Abstract When thinking of the purpose of Jesus’ coming to earth, one’s response generally lies in his death. While the death of Jesus is of utmost importance in his coming, there is a larger picture in which the purpose of Jesus can be found. This picture includes the snapshots of his birth, life and teachings, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Each of these aspects holds the story of the fulfillment of the story of Israel, the good news of Jesus, the revealing of the Father, and the power of salvation. This essay examines Jesus’ purpose beyond his death through biblical and theological study. The issue that humanity was bound to was not its sin, but its inevitable death because of sin. Out of his desire for a restored relationship with humanity, God made spiritual life possible through Jesus. His coming brought about the Kingdom of God. Through his life, teachings, miracles, and other interactions with humanity, Jesus gave them an example of how to live in this kingdom. This is the piece that is so often forgotten among those who solely view Jesus’ death as his purpose. His death was of utter importance, for through his death and resurrection Jesus made spiritual life possible in both the current kingdom and the next. Each snapshot within the purpose of Jesus allows humanity to better understand and enter into a deeper relationship with him.

ii

To my father and mother, Gary and Sher, and my wife Kristina

iii

Acknowledgements

I owe a great amount of gratitude to Dr. Braden Anderson, lead faculty at Southwestern College. His encouragement, support, and feedback have not gone unnoticed throughout the entire process of this thesis, from outlining ideas to this completed essay. To my father and mother, Gary and Sher Nyquist, who raised me in a God-honoring way and instilled within me the desire to study the Word of God. I would also like to thank all those who encouraged and supported me since the start of the MATS program. These include my good friends Jon Oney, Kaleb Greene, Zach Morin, Matthew Rahimi, and Daniel Burdash. Without their support, feedback, and theological discussions, this essay would not have been possible. Lastly, I would like to thank my lovely new wife Kristina. Thank you for your immense patience and encouragement throughout my classwork and thesis process. Up until I began my studies in theology, I would have greatly disagreed with this essay. Ryan R. Nyquist

iv

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction and Literary Review

Section 2: Critique of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Section 3: What did Jesus say His Purpose was in Coming?

Section 4: The Salvation of Humanity

Section 5: How does the Christian Respond (Conclusion)

11

Section 1: Introduction and Literary Review

It is difficult today in theology to talk about Christology and not find oneself in a heated

conversation. There have been many differing views, which have equally sparked war in

churches and even divided people of faith. The nature and purpose of Christ has become a hot

button issue in modern culture. Christology has been a form of divisiveness among Christians. It

is either passed over by those in the faith or used as a rule to measure if one is a part of the “real

Faith in Jesus.” The question still remains. “Why? Why did Jesus come to die? Not why in the

sense of cause, but why in the sense of purpose…what great thing was happening on Calvary for

the world?”1 Reformed pastor and theologian John Piper is not alone asking this question. For

centuries, in both academia and among popular discourse, people have been asking the question,

“Why?” in regards to the coming of Christ. Fourth-century bishop Gregory of Nyssa is also

noted as having questioned, “Why did the divine being descend to such humiliation? Our faith

staggers at the thought that God, the infinite, inconceivable and ineffable reality, who transcends

all glory and majesty, should be clothed with the defiled nature of man.”2

Piper’s question, however, sheds light on where much of Western Christianity resides

today in its thinking of purpose of the coming of Jesus. In asking, “Why did Jesus come to die?”

Piper is asserting to his readers that Jesus’ purpose in coming was to die. But was Jesus’ main

purpose in coming to earth simply to die? Why did Jesus really come to earth? For the atheist,

agnostic, and some Christians, the response might be along the lines of, “Jesus came to earth just

like any other human, was a talented speaker and teacher, and gifted humanity with a new moral

code.” For the Christian, the response will likely be similar to, “Jesus came to die for the sins of

1 John Piper, Fifty Reasons why Jesus Came to Die (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006) 16. 2 “Thomas F. Torrence on the Incarnation and Soteriology,” The Christian Theology Reader, ed. Alister E. McGrath, 4th ed. (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011) 271-272.

22

humanity, so that some can live forever in heaven with Him someday.” While neither of these

answers is necessarily wrong, it can be argued that they are very limited in their view, only

grasping a small, partial snapshot in the large collage of why Jesus came. This essay will offer an

alternative response.

Many of the ideas that surround the theology of incarnation and its purpose focus

primarily on the death of Christ, so Christians tend to look at Christ’s death as his purpose in

coming to earth. In his book God So Loved the World, author Jonathan Wilson explains the issue

further:

In the way that Christians have talked about Christ’s death, we have often given the impression that his death has no real connection to his life. That is, we have interpreted Christ’s death as if it were a singular event, entirely unrelated to the rest of the gospel story. Thus, for example, when we have interpreted Christ’s death as a sacrifice, we have at times ignored the sacrificial character of the rest of his life.3

Similarly, noted philosopher Wolfhart Pannenberg believes that individuals no longer separate

the person from the redemptive work of Christ.4 Many Christians have so emphasized Christ’s

death that the meaning and importance of his life is almost completely forgotten and ignored as

Wilson has noted. However, this thesis argues that rather than being deemed as the sole purpose

for his coming, the cross is instead a piece of a larger and more textured picture. This is not to be

understood to reduce the value of the cross, but rather to expand our focus to all other aspects of

the nature, character, action, and mission of Christ.

If so much focus is placed on his death, what is to be said about his life? Could the value

of Jesus’ life, teachings, miracles, and other interactions with humanity be viewed to be of equal

3 Jonathan R. Wilson, God So Loved the World: A Christology for Disciples (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001) 79. 4 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster) 1977.

33

value with his death and resurrection? What exactly is it about Jesus that saves? Is it simply the

cross that possesses a mysterious saving power, or is the mystery of salvation found in the

entirety of who Jesus is?

In The King Jesus Gospel, author Scot McKnight attempts to answer these questions and

give a revised approach to the gospel and the purpose of Jesus. McKnight first addresses the

issue within the American church, in which “The gospel is about getting my sins forgiven so I

can go to heaven when I die.”5 McKnight argues for a shift from the current salvation culture

back to a gospel culture. He makes the point that Western church has shifted from being a gospel

culture to being a salvation-focused culture. McKnight points out that rather than conveying the

message of personal salvation, the gospel (which he asserts is the combination of Matthew,

Mark, Luke, and John, rather than being the “four Gospels” they are “the four books of the one

Gospel”)6 is first the story of Israel coming to completion in the story of Jesus before it is a

revelation of the plan of salvation. To solidify this position, McKnight asserts what he believes

to be the core content of the gospel:

Jesus’ birth to secure his claim to the eternal throne that was promised to David, the miracles of Jesus proved that God’s kingdom was present in him, the teachings invited others into the kingdom while stating the requirements for entering, the death of Jesus was a sacrifice that atoned for sins of those who were otherwise condemned, and the resurrection established Jesus as God’s son who has been given judgeship over the world and leader of the impending kingdom.7

McKnight argues against equating the plan of salvation with either the story of Israel or the Story

of Jesus, for doing so “distorts the gospels and at times even ruins the story.”8 With this

understanding that McKnight claims, “The plan of salvation emerges from the Story of

5 Scot McKnight. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011) 27. 6 Ibid, 82. 7 Ibid, 81. 8 Ibid, 37.

44

Israel/Bible and from the story of Jesus, but the plan and the gospel are not the same big idea.”9

Instead of being the focus of the gospels, and the entire New Testament for that matter, the idea

of salvation flows out of the greater story. When the primary focus of the gospel is not salvation,

then one’s understanding of salvation increases in greater capacity. McKnight is correct in his

arguing up until he states, “[The Gospels] are all about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection,

exaltation, and future coming.”10 His point is that these aspects of Jesus are the only way that

Israel’s story can be completed and fulfilled. What, then, does one make of Jesus’ assertions in

the Sermon on the Mount, or how Jesus interacts with the Pharisees and other teachers and

religious leaders? This essay will take much of McKnight’s views but develop a different

conclusion, one that focuses on the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and future coming

of Jesus rather than just his death.

To begin, the contemporary and widely held view of Jesus among many Western

churches will be critiqued. In this view it is the widely held belief that Jesus came for the sole, or

at least main, purpose of dying. This understanding rings true in many whom ascribe to the

atonement theory of penal substitution wherein Jesus takes on the punishment as a substitute for

humanity. In this view, then, it is only natural that one views the death of Christ as of central, if

not exclusive importance. To better understand this view, a critique will be given of penal

substitutionary atonement. While it is possible for those who assume penal substitutionary

atonement to still give Jesus’ life proper respect, the overall system points solely at his death as

his purpose. Further, although there are multiple other theories of the atonement that could be

criticized, the popularity and the impact of penal substitution in the Western church gives reason

for this critique.

9 McKnight, 39. 10 Ibid, 90.

55

Next, the focus turns to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for the recordings of the words

of Jesus as they are found in the gospel accounts. The focus will reside on Jesus’ words as to

why he came. Why did he say he came? Did he come with an agenda? Was he aware of his

divine purpose? If so, how did he convey that purpose? Following the gospel analysis, with the

words of Jesus in mind, the focus will turn to the salvation of humanity. If there is a more

expanded purpose of Jesus beyond merely his death, then could there also be an expanded

understanding of salvation that involves his life also? Perhaps rather than simply asking how the

death of Christ works towards the salvation of humanity, one should ask how does the birth, life,

death, resurrection, ascension, and impending return of Jesus collaborate in humanity’s salvation.

Finally, with regards to all that has been stated a response will be given to Christians, for this

revised method of understanding must be accompanied by a response to highlight the potential

need for changes in thinking, living, and interacting with others. As one focuses their view on the

greater picture of Jesus, the hope is that one will develop greater understanding, greater life

application, and greater love for him.

66

Section 2: Critique of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

“Why? Why did Jesus come to die? Not why in the sense of cause, but why in the sense

of purpose? What did Christ achieve by his death? Why did he have to suffer so much? What

great thing was happening on Calvary for the world?”11 With regard to Piper’s question, “What

did Christ achieve by his death,” many, including Piper, hold to the view of penal substitutionary

atonement. According to Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, “The doctrine of penal

substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the

death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.”12 When those who

hold this view look at the life of Christ, it is no surprise that their understanding of Christ’s

purpose lies primarily on his death. The following pages will critique this view for the purpose of

a more clear and precise understanding of Jesus’ reasons and purpose for coming. The reason for

critiquing penal substitutionary atonement as opposed to other views is primarily for its

popularity and widely ascribed to nature in Western church culture. A proper critique will

encourage the reader to consider shifting their paradigm from the view of penal substitution to

the proposed alternate.

John Piper understands the work of Christ through legal metaphors, having only been

completed and salvation being obtained by the canceling of records. As perpetrators of sin, penal

substitution demands a justice that uses vengeful punishment as righting the records of wrong,

much like the human justice system—punishment for the sake of punishment instead of

restorative justice. Justice is seen in the punishment, not in the restoration of humanity. Piper

writes, “The record of our bad deeds (including our defective good deeds), along with the just

11 Piper, 16-17. 12 Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey & Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007) 21.

77

penalties that each deserves, must be blotted out – not balanced.”13 To Piper, the sin record of

each human could not simply be erased, but rather a penalty for sin first had to be paid. This

“debt payment” metaphor comes primarily from the work of Anselm in Cur Deus Homo. Author

J. Denny Weaver comments on Anselm’s work: “For Anselm, the sin of humankind had

offended the honor of God and brought disharmony and injustice into the universe. A debt

payment was necessary in order to restore God’s honor or to restore order and justice to the

universe.”14 Anselm tackles the issue of a debt without payment, asking whether “It is fitting for

God to forgive a sin out of mercy alone, without any restitution of what is owed to him.”15

Anselm argues heavily that the sinner must be punished if sin is to be regulated correctly.

However Anselm includes a key argument here in his recorded discussion with Boso, the abbot

of the Norman abbey at Bec from 1124-1136.16 He argues that since God is not subject to any

law or judgment, then he should not be bound to this supposed necessity of a required

punishment. Further, at multiple times throughout the gospel, Jesus teaches his followers to

forgive when they are sinned against. For God to act contrary to this would seem to be possibly

hypocritical and unfitting to his nature. The view held by Anselm and Piper, however, does not

reduce the character, dignity, or love God. One could argue that God remains righteous in his

retribution towards sinful humanity. Further, contrary to penal substitution, God does not

condemn with a punitive judgment, that the true character, dignity, and love of God is found.

According to Timothy Keller, another advocate of penal substitutionary atonement, “If we know

13 Piper, 33. 14 J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2011) 17. 15 Anselm. The Major Works. Edited by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998). 16 Scott David Foutz “A Brief Survey of Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur Deus Homo?” Quodlibet Journal, 1994. Retrieved on July 14, 2014 from http://www.quodlibet.net/anselm.shtml.

88

that forgiveness always entails suffering for the forgiver and that the only hope of rectifying and

righting wrongs comes by paying the cost of suffering, then it should not surprise us when God

says, ‘The only way I can forgive the sins of the human race is to suffer – either you will have to

pay the penalty for sin or I will.’ Sin always entails a penalty. Guilt can’t be dealt with unless

someone pays.”17 It is because of this understanding that Keller defines the cross as both a legal

necessity and the purpose of Jesus. Continuing on with this way of thinking, Keller asserts that

the purpose of the gospel is simply to establish the identity of Christ, while the purpose of Christ

was to endure the cross.18 It is Keller’s belief that the primary mission and purpose of Jesus, of

which he left little doubt, was to come and die.19

While some describe the work of Christ as a debt payment, others describe this act of

Jesus as a ransom being paid. Even Jesus himself mentioned this as recorded in Matthew 20:28

and Mark 10:45. Describing this act as a ransom, however, is often misunderstood. The

misunderstanding lies in the person to whom the ransom being paid. To some, it is suggested that

the ransom is being paid directly to the devil. The central thought in this view is that Adam and

Eve subjected themselves to the Devil in the garden when they chose to listen to the words of the

serpent and disobey the words of God. Furthermore, it is believed that God tricked the Devil into

taking Christ’s death as a ransom, not realizing that Christ possessed the ability to overcome

death. Thus, justice had been satisfied from God, and humanity had become free from the devil’s

power.20 This view, however, this implies that the devil holds power over God. The devil then

has the power to demand that God give up his own blood in return for humanity. Others have

17 Timothy Keller, King’s Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus (New York, NY: Dutton, 2011) 101. 18 Ibid,111. 19 Ibid, 138. 20 Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theology (Grantham: Messiah College).

99

suggested that the ransom is being paid to God. This view is also rejected on the basis that is

essentially makes God the slave master even in sin, and there is little logic found in God paying

the ransom to himself.21 Paul clarifies this in Romans 6, but stating to whom humanity is

enslaved. He describes humanity as formerly being “slaves to sin,” who are now freed from the

power of sin and have become “slaves to God” (Rom. 6:20 & 22). The slavery of humanity is not

to the devil, but rather to sin. The inevitable result of that slavery to sin leads to spiritual death.

Even after becoming slaves to God sins will still be committed and physical death is

unavoidable.

In Genesis 2 God tells Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you

shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). In Romans 5 Paul

writes, “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the

transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Rom. 5:14). In Romans 6,

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”

(Rom. 6:23). Finally in 1 Corinthians 15, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also

the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1

Cor. 15:21-22). There is no argument in the fact that the punishment for sin, as set forth by God

and reiterated by Paul, is death. Let it be understood that the use of death and life here are

beyond the physical and into the spiritual. In the garden God was making it clear that if humanity

sinned, that it would experience not only a separation from the body, but a separation from God.

Humanity was in need of salvation from its eternal and spiritual death a salvation that offered

eternal and spiritual life. This could only be done, however, through a death that would

essentially end all death, something that no human was capable of accomplishing. This is why

21 Wilson.

1010

Jesus ‘ statement in John 10, as was mentioned in the previous section, is so essential for

understanding when he says, “I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John

10:10). If death was to be defeated, then Jesus had to have experienced death, which happened

upon his Father’s abandonment as is noted in Matthew (Matt. 27:46). The author of Hebrews

affirms this when he writes, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself

likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the

power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Similarly in Romans, Paul states, “The power of

the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom. 8:3). The

method by which Jesus achieved this victory over death, the righteousness of forgiveness and

love, is also used to teach humanity how it should also seek to achieve its victories.22 Scripture

teaches that, “The Lord is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works” (Ps. 145.17), and

that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). These two characteristics of God’s nature are pieces as to why

God not only chose to save humanity, but also two aspects that are seen throughout Jesus’ life,

ministry, death, and resurrection. By conquering the disobedience of humanity, as was the case

with the Genesis account of the fall, Jesus made possible the way for humanity to enter into the

kingdom. Therefore, rather than dying as a substitute in the place of humanity, Jesus died to

defeat death in order that it would no longer reign over humanity, giving humanity the ability to

experience an eternal spiritual life. Because of Christ, humanity can experience an escape from

spiritual death and enter into spiritual life.

To clarify, similarly to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, the death of

Christ was still sacrificial in its nature. The death that humanity was faced with needed to be

remedied by defeating it. The only way that could have been accomplished was if Jesus had died

22 Wilson, 92.

1111

the death that all were faced with and had risen in victory, having escaped the separation from

God that sin had caused. In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis offers insight into this way

of understanding. To Lewis, the view in which Jesus volunteers to take the punishment for

sinners is a “silly theory.”23 Lewis offers an alternative way of thinking using sacrificial

language. In this alternative thinking, Lewis pushes readers to consider the difference between,

“paying the penalty,” versus, “footing the bill.”24 He gives readers an example of a man falling

into a hole. In such a circumstance, the weight of getting out of the hole usually falls on a friend.

This hole, according to Lewis, is the state that humanity has put itself into. Rather than being

imperfect beings in need of improvement, humanity has taken up a rebellion against God. The

only way out of the “hole,” Lewis believes, is for humanity to surrender, give up its arms, and

repent. To summarize, according to Lewis’ example, Jesus doesn’t jump down into the hole for

the friend, but rather was the one to reach down and pull the stuck friend out. Thus, Lewis

proposes that in regards to atonement, the purpose of Jesus was deliverance rather than

substitution.

In Galatians 4, Paul writes, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his

Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we

might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5). Similarly, as Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5, Jesus

understood that part of his purpose was to fulfill the law that they were not capable of keeping.

Here, Paul believes that Jesus’ method of doing so was by redeeming humanity from the law.

Paul describes the law as a guardian, by which humanity was directed by and justified by faith

through until its necessary end, when Christ came (Gal. 3:24). Thus because of Christ, the law

was no longer needed as a guardian or as a means of justification. In Christ, a guardian is found

23 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2000) 56. 24 Ibid, 56.

1212

through his direction, his teaching and other instruction, and by viewing his various interactions

with humanity. Likewise, a means of justification by faith is also found through Christ. In this,

the law is not abolished as Christ also stated, but rather Jesus fulfills and overtakes the functions

of the law in himself.

1313

Section 3: What did Jesus say His Purpose was in Coming?

What did Jesus say was his purpose in coming? Did he preach that his main, if not sole,

purpose was to come and die? This section focuses on eight examples from the gospels where

Jesus indicates explicitly or implicitly why he came to reside among humanity. Jesus was fully

aware of his impending death, yet he still chose to give other reasons for his purpose. The

purpose of this section is to look directly at the words of Jesus to understand his mission from his

own perspective, as recorded in the gospels, beginning in Matthew.

During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated, “Do not think that I have come to

abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17,

ESV).25 In the first half of this statement, Jesus is reinforcing the validity of the scriptures that

they had, ranging from the Torah to the rest of the Old Testament. The second half of Jesus’

statement is much more radical when he claims that all of the Law and the words of the prophets

are fulfilled in him. The issue among interpreters is Jesus’ use of “fulfill.” A simple explanation

is that Jesus is the culmination of all the Law and the words of the prophets. With this

interpretation the Law and the prophets, each in its own way, focused on Christ. All of their

words and works are “filled up” in Jesus, thus the age of “the Law and the prophets” is now

superseded by the age of the Messiah.26 In this understanding, Jesus was not looking to expand,

annul, or intensify them, but rather his coming brought about their completion and fulfillment.27

Further, the kingdom that Jesus inaugurates brings God’s intent and meaning throughout the Old

25 All cited scripture passages from this point forward will be taken from: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version: The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008). 26 J. Knox Chamblin, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the Bible: Based on the NIV, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989) 729. 27 Kenneth L. Barker & John R Kohlenberger III, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged Edition, New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994).

1414

Testament to a culmination.28 All of this, however, brings about the looming question. What was

God’s intent through the Law and the prophets that was fulfilled in the person of Christ? While

the answer to this question could take up entire books, briefly stated the answer comes down to

four elements: the specific messianic predictions, the foreshadowing of Jesus’ coming and his

death played out in both Old Testament prophesies and events, the laws to which he was

perfectly obedient, and in the behaviors that his life gave example to set out in the Wisdom

Literature.29 The Old Testament predictions and examples within the Wisdom Literature point

not only to the lineage from whence Jesus will come, but also predicts various acts within his

life, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension. Likewise, Jesus not only kept the law as a

perfect Jew, but also extended its power beyond the actions of its followers into their hearts. In

short this passage does point to Jesus’ death as a purpose for his coming, but only one among

multiple others.

Next, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not

come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt 10:34). Here, Jesus isn’t speaking of a literal sword to

destroy, but rather he is speaking in a metaphor of the inevitable separation between those who

will believe in him and those who do not, even within family. In a present context, one can think

of some religious and cultural traditions that drive individuals to extremes such as disowning and

even killing their own family. Whenever a child or other family member makes change to this, a

disowning or killing is justifiable to the rest of the family. The culture to which Jesus was

speaking into was the same. According to the Law, anyone who became an apostate was subject

to death, even among family (Deut 13:6-10). In this message, Jesus was warning his followers of

the cost of following him: that one should be willing to look beyond even family bonds for the

28 Michael Wilkins, note on Matthew 5:17, ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008). 29 Ibid.

1515

sake of following him. This passage emphasizes the lifestyle that one should be willing to either

adopt or give up. This lifestyle is one that is modeled not only after the lifestyle that Jesus

preached, but also the lifestyle that he lived.

The third passage highlights one of Jesus’ key messages that he both preached and

exemplified throughout his life: serving others. Matthew records an account of Jesus talking to

the mother of James and John, asking Jesus to favor them in his kingdom. In this account Jesus

discloses that he is not like other kings, for those who in his kingdom who are great become

servants and the first become last. In this, comes the statement, “The Son of Man came not be

served but to serve” (Matt 20:28 & Mark 10:45). In this statement about his coming Jesus is

emphasizing the aspect of his ministry that focuses on a service to others. Addressing the

disciples in this manner, Jesus calls them to the same lifestyle of servitude. Jesus’ life of service

is shown multiple times throughout the Gospel, but the pinnacle of his call to service is in John’s

account where Jesus washes the disciples’ feet (John 13:1-20). After performing the task that

was reserved only for servants, Jesus tells his disciples, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have

washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example,

that you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:14-15). His command here is not to

literally wash the feet of those around them, but rather to be willing to do the task belonging to

the lowest among them. This aspect of Jesus’ mission and purpose is an ethical one, for in his

coming Jesus not only came to die, but also to show humanity how to live.

One of the most significant of all of Jesus’ statements as to why he came is found in the

beginning of Luke’s book of the gospel message. Scholars suggest that although Luke places this

segment of Jesus’ life towards the beginning of his book, the event likely took place later in the

life of Jesus. It is suggested that this teaching of Jesus was so influential in laying out the

1616

purpose of Christ, that Luke saw it fitting to be placed at the beginning of his record of Jesus’

ministry.30 Similarly, the significance of this account being placed immediately after Jesus’

temptation in the wilderness leads the readers of Luke to better understand the Spirit’s indwelling

of Jesus and his sense of purpose after sustaining temptation. In Luke 4, Jesus enters the

synagogue on the Sabbath and states, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has

anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the

captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to

proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19). In this passage, Jesus reveals that he is

aware of his anointing from the Spirit of God and proclaims that he is the one Isaiah is

prophesying about when he states, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing”

(Luke 4:21). Jesus reveals that the focus of his messianic call is to the poor, the captives (those

who have been disregarded by society and those who are subject to spiritual death), the blind

(both those who are literally blind and to those who are spiritually blind), and the oppressed.31

This is the beginning of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God.

From this point forward Jesus begins to preach of the kingdom, not only as something

that is to come, but also as something that has come. As N.T. Wright notes, “[Jesus] regarded

his own work not simply as pointing forward to this kingdom, but also as actually inaugurating

it: his actions make sense only if he believed that through them the kingdom was in some sense

present, not simply future.”32 Jonathan Wilson notes four characteristics of this kingdom.33 The

first characteristic is the reality of the kingdom. According to Wilson, the kingdom is not simply

30 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the Bible: Based on the NIV, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989). 31 Wayne Grudem & Thomas R. Schreiner, note on Luke 4:18-19. ESV Study Bible. 32 Marcus J. Borg & N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1999) 96. 33 Wilson.

1717

an ideal to strive for, an ideology by which we are to live, or a promise to hope for. Rather, the

kingdom is a reality in which we are to live. Essentially, the kingdom is not simply a series of

ideas strung together in hopes of a better world, but rather is the earthly actualization of the

kingdom of Heaven being brought about by Jesus’ disciples. The second characteristic noted by

Wilson is the perfection of the kingdom. Throughout his life, Jesus demonstrated and showed

humanity what life is supposed to be. He exposed the corrupt nature of human longing that

distorts and destroys human lives. He revealed that although a sinless life is not possible, there is

a better way than the corrupt and distorted. Third is the value of the kingdom. Jesus reveals the

value of the kingdom by showing humanity how it has reduced the demands of God to a simpler

standard that it can meet. What makes the Jesus’ teachings so profound is that in them he reveals

that even those who thought themselves to be capable of perfectly keeping the law were still

sinful in their hearts. The fourth and final characteristic of the kingdom as noted by Wilson is the

openness of the kingdom. The kingdom that Jesus proclaimed was open to all. The unfortunate

side to this, however, is that not all choose to be in the kingdom. As was stated above, to Jesus

the kingdom was not simply something that was to come, but rather was something that had

come and was being implemented through his life coming. Later in Luke 4, Jesus remarks, “I

must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for

this purpose” (Luke 4:43). This kingdom is the reign of Jesus, which began with his life. Jesus

showed his followers how to live and act towards one another in his kingdom. Following his

ascension, Jesus continues to reign through the power of the Holy Spirit until his return.

Looking at this verse within the grand scale of the entire account of the gospel, one can

note three things. First, preaching was important to Jesus. Proclaiming the good news of the

kingdom of God was of key importance to him. Second, Jesus intended to proclaim this news all

1818

over. The people in the synagogue in Judea did not want him to leave them, but he revealed that

his message was for more than just them. Finally, it is of key importance to note that Jesus was

sent. There are some who look at the coming of Jesus and believe that Jesus came of his own

accord, to pay the debt himself that was owed to God from humanity. If Jesus had come on his

own accord, then this view not only places the Father and the Son at odds with one another, but

also is not possible if one correctly understands that Jesus was sent.

Another passage in which Jesus describes his purpose is another of key importance. In

John, after Jesus heals a man blind from birth, Jesus tells the crowds who were listening, “The

thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it

abundantly” (John 10:10). Here, Jesus is explaining that living out the calling that he has given

leads to an abundant life. In living out this calling, followers are called “not to a dour, lifeless,

miserable existence that squashes human potential, but to a rich, full, joyful life, one overflowing

with meaningful activities under the personal favor and blessing of God and in continual

fellowship with his people.”34 In this, Jesus is not simply freeing humanity from death, but also

calling them to a life full of enjoyment and fulfillment. This verse is one that highlights not only

Jesus’ purpose for how humanity ought to live, but also illuminates his plan for redemption.

Thinking of salvation, author John Zizioulas believes, “The salvation of the world must be

salvation from death… For death to be overcome, the created has to come into relationship with

the uncreated, and source its life from it”35 Jesus came to bring life, the salvation for humanity

from its spiritual death.

The final two passages of scripture of note are found in John’s record of Jesus’ final day

before his crucifixion, one during the last supper with the disciples and one during his trial

34 Andreas J. Köstenberger, note on John 10:10. ESV Study Bible. 35 John D. Zizioulas, Lectures in Christian Dogmatics (New York: T&T Clark, 2008) 102.

1919

before Pilate. Jesus tells his disciples, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)

and, “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear

witness to the truth” (John 18:37). In these passages, Jesus reveals his task of revealing the

Father and the Father’s will for humanity. When he says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the

Father,” Jesus is not only revealing that he is divine and God-like, but also that the Father is

Christ-like. They are the same in character, nature, and love. This is exemplified all throughout

the life of Jesus in his teachings, miracles, and other interactions.

So what is the importance of this? When one looks at these words of Christ, as they are

recorded in the gospel, one can better glimpse the purpose of his coming. However, in looking at

the above noted verses Jesus does not seem to mention his death. The gospel makes it clear that

Jesus knew of his death, but only seemed to mention it on occasion (i.e. Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22,

Matt 16:21, etc.). This is not to discredit his death, but rather allow one’s focus to shift from

being solely on the death of Christ to residing on Jesus’ emphasis of the kingdom, his role in the

overall story of Israel, and other revealed purpose as well.

2020

Section 4: The Salvation of Humanity

In Acts, Peter is recorded to have stated, while speaking of Jesus, “There is salvation in

no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be

saved” (Acts 4:12). While reading this passage, one will ask, “How is salvation found in Jesus

alone?” or further, “How is salvation obtained in Jesus alone?” and, “How do the birth, life,

death, and resurrection of Jesus work toward the salvation of humanity?” To address these

questions, the concepts of salvation and eternal life as taught in certain modern contexts will be

compared to the biblical portrayal of these concepts. After the analysis, a moderately revised and

scripturally based passage to salvation will be given. After viewing Jesus’ statements of purpose

in the previous section, it is clear that Jesus loves humanity and desires that love in return.

Enabling humanity to be saved was clearly a purpose of Jesus’ coming. The argument remains

that the purpose of Jesus lies in more than just his death. Therefore, the goal of this section is to

focus on salvation as it fits in to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and how each of

those pieces of Jesus’ life made salvation possible; not just his death.

At some point between Jesus’ return to heaven and the present, the message of following

Jesus changed from “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross

daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23), to following the simple frame of: “God loves you, you are

messed up, Jesus died for you, accept him and (no matter what you do) you can go to heaven.”36

As McKnight points out, what has become the normal in the modern church context, particularly

in Western Protestantism, is that one simply has to believe, pray the prayer, and no matter what

else they do, they get to go to heaven. How did this become the process? Did Jesus teach

salvation in this way? To answer, we look at places within the Gospel where Jesus remarks on

36 McKnight, 73.

2121

salvation, justification, eternal life, or entering into his kingdom. In Matthew 10 Jesus

encourages his followers to stand firm under persecution, for “The one who endures to the end

will be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Is salvation gained by enduring persecution? In Mark 2, while

teaching in a house, a group of men lower their friend through a cut hole in the roof and lower

their paralyzed friend through it. The author writes, “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the

paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:1-12). Is it the faith of one’s friends that cleanses

their sin and makes them fit for eternal life? In Luke 18, Jesus tells a parable of a Pharisee and a

tax collector who go into the temple to pray. The Pharisee is clearly proud that he is not a sinner

like the tax collector and boasts of his giving, while the tax collector simply asks for mercy while

admitting to being a sinner. Jesus proclaims that, in this instance, it was the tax collector who

went home justified because of his humility (Luke 18:9-14). Is it simply by humbling ourselves

and asking for mercy that justifies us? Next, also in Luke 18, a rich ruler asks Jesus what he must

do in order to inherit eternal life. After a brief conversation the man leaves saddened, for he was

not willing to give up his wealth for the poor as Jesus had asked him (Luke 18:18-25). Similarly

in Luke 19, Zacchaeus tells Jesus that he will give half of his possessions to the poor and will

repay in excess what he has cheated from others. Jesus responds with, “Today salvation has

come to this house” (Luke 19:1-10). Is humanity allowed eternal life by foregoing our personal

wealth, righting our wrongs, and giving to the poor? In Luke 20 Jesus is questioned about the

afterlife, to which he responds that it is a matter of worthiness as to who will enter the age to

come (Luke 20:27-40). In Luke 23, while on the cross a man next to Jesus asked Jesus to

remember him when he entered into his kingdom. To reply, Jesus assured the man that they

would be together in paradise (Luke 23:40-43). Does humanity simply need to ask to be

remembered to enter into the kingdom? In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that if he desired to see

2222

the kingdom of God, he must first be “born again” (John 3:1-8). Nicodemus is clearly puzzled by

this terminology, but even in a modern context the concept of being “born again” is still one that

requires deep thought.

These passages and the questions they prompt suggest that the path to salvation,

justification, and eternal life that Jesus taught seems very far from the “pray the prayer” method

that is often taught and used today. Because of its sin, humanity had set itself up for an eternal

separation from God. Humanity needed to be saved from its spiritual death. This death, however,

was conquered within Jesus Christ, for “God alone is able to vanquish death, because he ‘alone

has immortality.”37 This salvation, however, has two aspects: justification and sanctification.

Before discussing these concepts, it must be stressed that the overwhelming grace of God makes

salvation possible. Two examples are found in Paul’s letter to the Romans and Paul’s letter to the

Ephesians. Paul notes that it is by grace that humanity is justified (Rom. 3:24), and it is by grace

that humanity is saved (Eph. 2:8). If the sin of humanity had held within a legal agreement, the

Father would technically hold the right to destroy all of humanity. However because of his grace,

which stems from his nature of love, humanity is allowed to participate in the gift of spiritual

life.

In a previous section, the result of sin was identified as death (Rom. 6:23). The only hope

of escaping death was either to be completely sinless or to have a salvation from that death. This

is the point where Christ’s death impacts salvation. Without Christ’s death to defeat humanity’s

own inevitable one, there is no hope. It is in Christ’s death where Paul’s use of “justification”

comes into the process of salvation. When understanding the concept of salvation, an individual

in the Western church will turn immediately to a legal mentality. Paul’s audiences were familiar

37 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Collegeville, MN: Unitas Books, 2004) 22.

2323

with legal metaphors. For Jewish audiences, Paul referred to the legal aspects of the covenant,

and for the Gentile audiences Paul responded to the Roman legal society. Since both of these

cultures were very familiar with legal verbiage, Paul uses the legal concept of justification when

teaching the message of salvation found in Christ. Outside of the legal metaphor, justification

can be understood instead in terms of one being released from their spiritual death. This is given

by grace by God and received by humanity through faith.

The author of James defines true faith when he writes, “Faith by itself, if it does not have

works, is dead” (James 2:17). The problem with the attitude that, “No matter what you do, you

can go to heaven,”38 is that it does in fact matter what one does, for the faith the author of James

describes is a faith that is proved by action. For example, a rock climber who has faith in the

rope’s capacity to hold them and their belayer’s ability to hold them up in the case of a fall, will

climb without worry. A different rock climber who lacks faith in one of these things will not

climb. The first climber’s faith is proved by her actions. Similarly, the author of James is

challenging believers to possess a true faith that is proved by action. From this point forward, the

believer must foster their relationship with Christ. The means by which the believer fosters the

relationship is found in the various spiritual disciplines, such as prayer, scripture reading, fasting,

etc. There is another aspect to this, which includes how believers interact with others. In John 13

Jesus tells his disciples, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love

for one another” (John 13:35). Similarly, earlier in his ministry Jesus claimed that the two

greatest commandments were to love God and to love others (paraphrased from Matt. 22:36-40).

The fact of the matter is that Jesus cares how humanity interacts with itself. This is seen

constantly throughout his ministry. Although he frequently withdrew to be alone, Jesus spent

38 McKnight, 73.

2424

much of his time teaching, preaching, healing, feeding, and spending time with those who were

in need. This is ultimately seen when Jesus tells his followers, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it

to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40), for in this story, Jesus

reveals the heart of God for the hungry, the estranged, the naked, the sick, and the prisoners.

Jesus offers eternal life to those who fed the hungry, befriended the stranger, clothed the naked,

cared for the sick, and visited the prisoner (Matt. 25:46). However to those who did not, he

claims that they directly neglected him, and fully deserving of all punishment (Matt. 25:45).

Jesus seems to clearly believe that the actions of humanity have a direct influence on its eternal

salvation, contrary to what is believed by those who McKnight mentions above.

Salvation is ultimately a choice. The reason that spiritual death became a problem was

because of humanity’s choice to sin. Giving humanity the ability and freedom of choice was a

large act of love for God, for in doing so God was giving humanity the freedom to not choose

him. The incarnation, however, was also a choice. God was not under any obligation to save

humanity, and Jesus reveals during his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane that although his

desire was to not undergo the intense suffering that he knew was coming, he chose to regardless

(Matt. 26:36-46). Similarly, Paul notes that the choice of God becoming man was one of

humbling nature (Phil. 2:7). The outpouring of love that comes directly from the essence of God

was enough to cause God to choose humanity despite its sin addiction. This love outpour not

only frees humanity from its binding to death, but also shows humanity how to love in return,

both by loving the lover and by loving one another.

In all of this, however, why was Jesus coming to earth as a man a necessary piece to

salvation? Zizioulas remarks, “What was required was for the Logos to come to man, and indeed

2525

to become man, so that all that has been created can be united to the uncreated.”39 In coming to

earth, Jesus made a relationship possible between God and humanity by providing a way to

humanity’s spiritual life. McGrath notes, “Unless Jesus Christ was himself a human being, other

human beings could not benefit from his presence or activity.”40 Since Jesus is fully God, fully

man, and sinless, he was not caught in the human system of life and death. This allowed his

coming to bring about salvation to creation as a whole, saving all from death.

In Gracious Christianity, Douglas Jacobsen and Rodney Sawatsky note, “Jesus was the

incarnation of God on earth for the sake of our salvation, and it is the entirety of his life,

teachings, death, and resurrection that saves us.”41 To them, and ultimately to all, “Salvation is

ultimately a mystery, but we know that Jesus is at the center of salvation and that everything he

said and did plays a part.”42 It is in this mystery that humanity is saved, in some sense, by

Christ’s birth and life among humanity, by his teachings and example, and by his death and

resurrection. Despite being a mystery, what is known is that one is “justified” and freed from

spiritual death and offered spiritual life by the death and resurrection of Christ. Following this,

Jesus calls all that follow him to first be born again. In being born again, Jesus is calling his

followers to be born as a child of God, like he was. This is how humanity is saved by his birth.

Then Jesus calls believers to live as he lived, love as he loved, do what he taught, and be willing

to die as he died. This is how humanity is saved by his life. Jesus’ resurrection made spiritual life

possible. This is how humanity is saved by his death and resurrection. Therefore, the birth, life,

39 Zizioulas, 102 40 McGrath, Christian Theology, 287. 41 Douglas Jacobsen & Rodney J. Sawatsky, Gracious Christianity: Living the Love we Profess (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006) 71. 42 Ibid, 71.

2626

ministry, and resurrection all work toward the salvation of humanity. Each fit into the purpose of

Jesus in addition to his death, fulfilling his purpose of saving humanity.

2727

Section 5: How does the Christian Respond (Conclusion)

This study has focused on the following questions: If so much emphasis is placed on

Jesus’ death, what is to be said about his life? Could the value of Jesus’ life, teachings, miracles,

and other interactions with humanity be viewed to be of equal value with his death and

resurrection? Finally, what exactly is it about Jesus that saves? Each of these has been answered

through careful research and biblical study. For some the answers will offer clarity and perhaps a

greater understanding of Jesus, his purpose, and the great expanse of his love. For others,

however, the answers provided may enact unsettling feelings. Argumentative points that are

contrary to commonly held beliefs could sometimes provide such a result. For some, the given

study that places emphasis on the life of Jesus in as much value as his death may unnecessary

and perhaps even unorthodox. For others, the argument against penal substitutionary atonement

(see section II) might be enough to call for heresy. Another, however, may be prompted to

further inquiry and understanding due to the given argument. An individual such as this may

begin to question their previous knowledge of Jesus, their understanding of the atonement, and

even their own salvation. This section will address these points.

To return to the original question of purpose, I have argued that the purpose of Jesus’

coming to earth should be viewed in greater terms than just his death. If understanding of

purpose resides heavily on the death of Jesus then one can miss out on the immense knowledge,

wisdom, and life application gained from the birth and life of Jesus. Another major issue that

results is the perceived path to salvation that McKnight criticized, in which all one must do is

“accept [Jesus] and (no matter what you do) you can go to heaven.”43 If this is the presentation of

salvation, then one completely misses out on the majority of what is recorded in the gospel. As

43 McKnight, 73.

2828

was demonstrated in section four, this method of salvation is essentially ineffective, yet it is

prominent throughout Western, primarily Evangelical, churches. Further, with new believers, the

salvation process generally goes, “You’re a sinner, you need Jesus, believe.” In many instances

like this the believer is given little to no instruction beyond this point. For many of those

individuals, life looks exactly the same as it did previous to their “conversion.” One could ask,

“Are they truly saved?” This is the case in many summer camps, evangelism rallies, and various

efforts of street evangelism. This is not to say that these are negative or useless things, however

what is being said is that there are more effective methods of doing so. As was mentioned also in

section four, the belief step is just as great as the step involving the actions and lifestyle of the

individual. In an individual’s life where there is no instruction or accountability after they “pray

the prayer,” their salvation is in question. In seeking a better way of this, there are two paths to

define: the role of a pastor, teacher, or minister, and the role of an individual layperson. For the

pastor, teacher, and minister, the responsibility lies within the presentation of salvation. The

method that McKnight criticizes must be removed and replaced with a method that still

accentuates belief, but also prompts action. This is a process that will generally not take place

immediately in the new believer’s life, which is why further instruction, accountability, and a

continued relationship are necessary. This is where the individual layperson can enter into the

process. It is truly difficult for a pastor, teacher, or minister to be responsible for their entire

congregation’s personal accountability. This is why personal relationships among believers

remain important and necessary. In cases where individuals “pray the prayer,” only to be turned

loose back to live their life without any aid, accountability, or relationship with a fellow

Christian, they are likely to see little to no change in their life that reflects true faith, belief, and

2929

salvation. By spreading the focus and emphasis across the birth and life of Jesus, this can be

avoided.

Amongst all believers, whether they are academics, teachers, pastors, or general

congregants, the recognized scope of Jesus’ saving work should be expanded to include his birth,

life, death, resurrection, and continued reign. This was presented and argued using both scholarly

work and biblical text against the Western widely held doctrine of penal substitutionary

atonement. Also, various biblical passages were presented in which Jesus spoke of his purpose.

By using these passages it was made clear that while Jesus was aware of his impending death, he

still spoke of other reasons when he was discussing his purpose. If his death was his sole

purpose, many of his “I have come for…” statements would have finished much differently then

they did.

Finally, the need for the purpose of Jesus’ coming to be spread throughout, rather then

solely focusing on his death has been shown in an analysis of salvation. In the process of

salvation, while the death of Jesus remains of key importance, his life does also. Throughout the

entire Bible it is clear that God cares for people. This was shown tangibly through Jesus’

interaction with humanity. The biblical narrative shows that God desires for a restored

relationship with humanity, in which humanity reciprocates the love that God willingly shows it.

Jesus not only showed humanity how to love one another, but also how to love the Father.

In regards to the present essay, one must admit there are many things of God that are

mysteries. The previous work remains as one’s careful biblical and scholarly research, however

there is no shame in admitting even the research of the most brilliant is at times more speculation

or inaccurate. Herein lies the beauty of God that not even the most brilliant can unlock the

mysteries within. Despite this, the above work is written as an argument for clarity and a

3030

deepened relationship with God through greater knowledge and insight into the purpose of Jesus.

Undisputedly, there was purpose in the cross and Jesus’ death as was affirmed above. However,

contrary to what others may believe, both among academia and popular discourse, there is also

great purpose in the rest of Jesus’ life as is written in the gospel. As a Christian, one ought to

look further into the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as they seek to know him, his

purpose, and his love.

3131

Bibliography

Anselm. The Major Works. Edited by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Barker, Kenneth L., & Kohlenberger, John R III. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged

Edition, New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Borg, Marcus J, & Wright, N.T. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. New York, NY:

HarperOne, 1999. Chamblin, J. Knox. “Matthew,” in Commentary on the Bible: Based on the NIV, ed. Walter A.

Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989. Collins, Robin. Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theology. Grantham: Messiah

College. Foutz, Scott David. “A Brief Survey of Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur Deus Homo?” Quodlibet

Journal, 1994. Retrieved on July 14, 2014 from http://www.quodlibet.net/anselm.shtml. Jacobsen, Douglas & Sawatsky, Rodney J. Gracious Christianity: Living the Love we Profess.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006. Jeffery, Steve, Ovey, Michael & Sach, Andrew. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering

the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville,

MN: Unitas Books, 2004. Keller, Timothy. King’s Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus. New York, NY:

Dutton, 2011. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2000. McGrath, Alister E. “Thomas F. Torrence on the Incarnation and Soteriology.” The Christian

Theology Reader, 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus: God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, 2nd

ed. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1977. Piper, John. Fifty Reasons why Jesus Came to Die. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006. Schreiner, Thomas R. “Matthew,” in Commentary on the Bible: Based on the NIV, ed. Walter A.

Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989.

3232

Scot McKnight. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).

Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co. 2011. Wilson, Jonathan R. God So Loved the World: A Christology for Disciples. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Academic, 2001. Zizioulas, John D. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. New York: T&T Clark, 2008.