Faith

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Unsatisfactory Satisfaction (Part 2)

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 5: Satisfaction for Sin

If you haven’t read the first part yet, I recommend that you take a look. This post is a direct continuation of the previous.

2. The cross satisfied the law

This view is also suggested in the Witch’s conversation with Aslan:

“‘Fool,’ said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, ‘do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.'”
~C.S. Lewis, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

Sin is violation of the law–and to fail to punish it would be to fail to satisfy the law. Stott gives a human example of this in the law that had Daniel thrown into the lion’s den. Even though King Darius really didn’t want to throw Daniel into the den, he had no choice but to do it. Even he was not above the law he had created.

This view has some utility and some Scriptural support. The Bible makes clear that the wages of sin are death. That price had to be paid. Sin has a curse associated with it. Jesus bore that curse.

Yet this view fails in that it subjects God to the law, as though God were “caught in a technical legal muddle.” Stott quotes R.W. Dale in saying that “God’s connection with the law is ‘not a relation of subjection but of identity….In God the law is alive; it reigns on his throe, sways his sceptre, is crowned with his glory.’ For the law is the expression of his own moral being, and his moral being is always self-consistent.”

3. The cross satisfied God’s honour and justice.

This view is likely to hold great appeal to Piper fans. It suggests that our sin is a dishonoring of God’s name, taking away the honor that is due Him, and that “God upholds nothing more justly than he doth the honour of his own dignity.”

Quoting Anselm (an early proponent of this view):

“Man the sinner owes to God, on account of sin, what he cannot repay, and unless he repays it he cannot be saved….There is no one who can make this satisfaction except God himself…But no one ought to make it except man; otherwise man does not make satisfaction….It is necessary that one who is God-man should make it.”
~from The Cross of Christ

C.S. Lewis takes a similar tack to explain the necessity of the Incarnation in Mere Christianity.

The reformers took on this view and the former, claiming that Christ’s death provided a double satisfaction: of God’s law and of God’s justice.

Again, this view has utility and Biblical support–but it has the same flaw as the second view. It suggests that somehow God is subservient to justice.

While the first view (discussed yesterday) was mostly wrong, these two views are mostly right. Yet none of the models that have been mentioned so far are satisfactory to Stott (or to me as Stott leads me along.) They’re missing something, some vital element.

What is satisfied at the cross if not the devil?
What is satisfied at the cross if not the law?
What is satisfied at the cross if not God’s honor and justice?

I’m getting long again, so this chapter will spill into another day. I promise you, though–only ONE more day! :-)

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Unsatisfactory satisfaction (Part 1)

3 Comments by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 5: Satisfaction for Sin

Satisfaction is a frankly theological term–and one it is hard to come to grips with. Stott writes:

“How, people ask, can we possibly believe that God needed some kind of ‘satisfaction’ before he was prepared to forgive, and that Jesus Christ provided it by enduring as our ‘substitute’ the punishment we sinners deserved? Are not such notions unworthy of the God of the biblical revelation, a hangover from primitive superstitions, indeed frankly immoral?”
~John Stott, The Cross of Christ

Merriam-Webster’s entry for satisfaction gives me little satisfaction.

Satisfaction
1 a : the payment through penance of the temporal punishment incurred by a sin b : reparation for sin that meets the demands of divine justice
2 a : fulfillment of a need or want b : the quality or state of being satisfied : contentment c : a source or means of enjoyment : gratification
3 a : compensation for a loss or injury : atonement, restitution b : the discharge of a legal obligation or claim c : vindication
4 : convinced assurance or certainty

Okay, so it mentions a theological meaning–but still, this seems difficult. Who’s doing the satisfying? Who or what is being satisfied? This definition doesn’t really cut it.

Stott describes four historical and contemporary views on satisfaction.

1. The cross satisfied the devil’s demands

This view suggests that humans, having sold themselves into slavery to the devil, are satan’s property, and can only be ransomed (bought back) if the devil’s conditions are met. I find a bit of this view in C.S. Lewis’ description of Aslan’s conversation with the White Witch regarding Edmund:

“‘Tell you?’ said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller. ‘…You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and the for every treachery I have a right to a kill.’

‘And so,’ continued the witch, ‘that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.’

‘Come and take it then,’ said the Bull with the man’s head in a great bellowing voice.

‘Fool,’ said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, ‘do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.’

‘It is very true,’ said Aslan, ‘I do not deny it.'”
~C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Here the Witch (the devil) stakes her claim on the lives of all traitors (sinners). Aslan (God) does not deny it. Instead, he dies in the traitor’s place to satisfy the witch’s demand for blood while satisfying his own love for Edmund the traitor.

There is certainly appeal to this view. It lets the devil be the “bad guy”, the one responsible for the particularly grotesque display that is the cross.

Yet there is a profound problem with this view as well. It gives the devil too much power. It gives him power over even God Himself. It makes God subject to satan’s demands.

No, the satisfaction obtained at the cross was not a satisfaction of the devil’s demands.

Since I’m getting a bit long-winded here and still have three more views to discuss, I’ll be stretching this chapter into a couple of posts. Check back tomorrow for the rest.

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Faith, Politics, The Week in Words

WiW: Patriotism and the Christian

2 Comments by

The Week in Words

I’ve been reading and discussing Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation with a book group here in town. The reading–and the discussion–has been intellectually and spiritually stimulating. Some of my assumptions have been confirmed–but far more have been challenged, forcing me to think through how being “in but not of” the world informs a Christian’s political involvement.

Boyd on the calling of the church to be “set apart”

“We utterly trivialize this profound biblical teaching if we associate our peculiar holiness with a pet list of religious taboos…No, the holiness the New Testament is concerned with is centered on being Christlike, living in outrageous, self-sacrificial love. If you make this your life aspiration, you will certainly be peculiar–about as peculiar as a Messiah dying on a cursed tree! You will be a ‘resident alien.'”

Although I might disagree with Boyd over how involved a Christian can be in politics, I sincerely appreciate Boyd’s emphasis that the kingdom of God is not about promoting a certain political or social agenda but about being Christ-like (the culmination of course, of Christ-likeness being exemplified in the cross.)

Boyd on Patriotism, at Relevant Magazine via Becky S. on Facebook

“So over the Fourth of July weekend—and all year—be appreciative of your country. Be patriotic. But make sure your patriotism pales in comparison to your sacrifice, commitment and allegiance to the Kingdom of God.”

I was glad I saw this article linked by a friend on Facebook. From where I’m at in The Myth of a Christian Nation (Chapter 4), Boyd appears to be bashing any “proud to be an American” sentiment. I’ve been relatively cautious about making conclusions based on just these few chapters, but I’m glad to have this notice that Boyd doesn’t have a problem with patriotism in general, just overemphasis on patriotism at the expense of the Kingdom of God. :-)

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 3)

Leave a comment by

I have heretofore described the Scriptural role of the government to administer justice and the Scriptural call to the church to be agents of mercy. Here, I shall attempt to describe what I see as the union of the two.

We are aliens in this world.

Whenever a Christian enters into the realm of politics, he must realize that in doing so he is stepping out of his native land into the affairs of the land in which He is a sojourner.

A Christian belongs to the kingdom of God–a kingdom firmly established on mercy, love, and nonaggression. This is the kingdom whose people decry self-defense, instead offering their cheeks to be struck. This is the kingdom whose citizens give to those who steal from them. This is the kingdom whose people would much rather be cheated than go to court.

The kingdoms of this world, on the other hand, are kingdoms (established by God) for the carrying out of justice. They are responsible, first and foremost, (at least inasmuch as Scripture reveals God’s plan for the kingdoms of this earth) for the punishing of wrongdoers and praising of the righteous.

The two kingdoms could not be more different.

The kingdom of God recognizes that Christ has borne the whole punishment for all sins–against God and against mankind–and therefore demands that citizens extend mercy to all. The kingdom of the world still labors under the fallenness of sin–and must punish wrongdoers lest injustice prevail.

The question, then, is how a Christian is to go about dealing with the political world. How is a Christian to navigate these opposing worlds of justice and mercy?

There are three common “takes” on a Christian’s involvement in politics.

Some take the conservative view, demanding justice on this earth–politically and personally. People should get what they deserve and nothing more. This is the view of the harsh disciplinarian, the uncompromising taskmaster, the down-with-the-welfare-state-up-with-the-military-state politico.

Others take a liberal stance, arguing for mercy at all costs. These are the bleeding hearts, the fairness police. They want redistribution of wealth, equal access to everything, a mother state who babies her citizens, and a non-aggressive foreign policy.

Still others urge avoidance. Best to stay out of politics, they say, lest you forsake the kingdom of God in your involvement with the kingdoms of this world.

But are these the only options for Christian involvement in the world?

My personal take lies outside of each of these. I believe that inasmuch as God’s revealed will for the governments of this world is that they be ministers of justice, I as a Christian should work to promote justice in political affairs. And inasmuch as God’s clearly revealed call to His church is that they be ministers of mercy, as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, I should seek to live a life marked by mercy.

What does this mean for me?

In my political involvement, I fight for justice–laws that reflect just practices, punishments that befit crimes, honest court systems. Yet as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I would never dream of making use of these courts to demand justice for myself. I am called to extend mercy to those who misuse me.

As an American citizen, I support just war (of course, the definition of just war is fuzzy and must be considered carefully) entered into by the state, whether preemptive or retaliatory. But as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I clearly recognize the call to never take justice into my own hands and wage war on my own accord. I could never bomb an abortion clinic or assassinate even the most evil of characters.

I disapprove of the governmental redistribution of wealth in order to secure social programs as an injustice to the deserving and the undeserving alike (punishing those who have earned their money justly and rewarding those who have failed to justly earn money). But as a citizen of the kingdom of God, I seek to liberally give my own money, goods, and services indiscriminately.

From my conception of God’s plan for the kingdoms of this world and for the kingdom of heaven, I am politically conservative and personally liberal. I work to promote a political system that is founded on justice–and seek to always live a life marked by mercy.

Of course, I like all people, am fallen–and regularly fail to live up to this goal. Too often, I demand justice for myself when I ought to extend mercy to others. And too often I request mercy of the political system, when I ought to accept and promote justice. But the above is my ideal–and I pray that by the grace of God, I might grow more and more to walk mercifully as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven–and to promote justice in this nation in which I am an alien.

Categories Book Notes, Theology

The Cross: Righteousness and Peace Have Kissed

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 4: The Problem of Forgiveness

In chapter 4, Stott addresses the question of why the cross was necessary to grant us forgiveness of sins. In essence, the question is:

Why can’t God forgive us without requiring a bloody, gruesome death of His Son?

This is a common question and one that is frequently brought up by Christians and non-Christians alike. The cross is detestable, disgusting, reprehensible. If God is love, how could He do such a thing? How could He cause the cruel death of His Son? Many people would like to believe in a universalist God–all Teddy Bear, no judgment. Others decry God as taking sadomasochist pleasure in torturing His Son.

Clearly, this is an important point to grapple with–and our conclusions regarding it have far-reaching implications for how we view God and humanity.

In order to understand the necessity of the cross for securing our forgiveness, we must become aware of the righteousness of God, the gravity of sin, and our culpability as sinners.

Why can God not “simply” forgive sinners?

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sin is a big deal. Sin is not simply a “mistake” or a “mess-up”. Sin is an act of rebellion against God. Sin is defiance not only against God’s law, but against God’s very nature.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because sinners are culpable for their sins. We are not automatons “forced” into rebellion against God by no choice of our own. True, our wills have been corrupted by original sin. But even still, we will to rebel against God. God did not create us sinners and then punish us for the sin He created us to do–no, we chose sin, chose rebellion, and willingly walk in it.

God cannot “simply” forgive sinners because God is righteous. He is completely pure, spotless, without blemish. He is far above and is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, just and unjust. He is holy, separate, distinct from evil. He cannot embrace the impure, the spotted, the blemished, the wrong, the unjust, the profane, the evil–or else He will no longer be righteous and holy.

God’s holiness demands that He cannot merely “forget” our sins and embrace us. Our sins must be punished. What’s more, because we are sinners, not only our actions but our selves must be punished. Our sins–and we as sinners–must bear the wrath of God.

This is the beauty of the cross

In the cross, Jesus Christ bore our sins, became our sin–and fully bore the wrath of God in Himself. God’s wrath satisfied, He is now free to forgive without compromising His nature. In the cross, righteousness and peace have kissed.

“Mercy and truth have met together;
Righteousness and peace have kissed.”
Psalm 85:10

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Why Did Christ Die?

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 3: Looking below the surface

I feel a bit guilty to be merely summarizing Stott’s main points in this chapter–yet his points are so good, I feel they require little comment from me. This is a fantastic intro to the significance of the cross, from Jesus’ perspective.

What is the significance of the cross?

1) Christ died for us.
2) Christ died to bring us to God
3) Christ died for our sins
4) Christ died our death

Jesus on His death

The Last Supper

1) Jesus affirmed the centrality of His death

  • The Last Supper, a commemoration of the death of Christ, was the ONLY commemorative act commanded by Jesus

2) Jesus affirmed the purpose of His death

  • Intended to create a new covenant
  • Intended to obtain forgiveness of sins

3) Jesus affirmed the necessity of personally appropriating His death

  • The disciples were commanded to eat and drink–to receive the work of Christ on their behalf

Gethsemane

4) Jesus agonizes over the wrath of God soon to be poured out on Him

  • Jesus’ agony in the garden was not over the prospect of physical pain and death, but in contemplation of the impending “cup” of God’s wrath to be poured out on Him.

The Cross

5) Jesus experienced true separation from the Father on the cross

  • In His cry “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?”, Jesus expresses true agony at the true, necessary, voluntary separation of Himself from the Father

Conclusions

When we look at the cross of Christ, we are forced to make three conclusions:
1) Our sin must be horrible
2) God’s love must be wonderful
3) Salvation must be free

“…We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
I Corinthians 1:23-24

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 2)

Leave a comment by

Social justice.

It’s the catchphrase that’s taking the American church by storm. Maybe it’s taking the entire nation by storm.

Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to define.

Clearly, it’s involved with social issues. Social justice is applied to social issues from poverty, hunger, homelessness, sexual exploitation, and lack of access to medical care.

And it’s somehow related to justice. At least, that’s what the name implies. It implies that it seeks to apply justice to these social issues.

The problem is, the name “social justice” is often misleading.

Sometimes the things that are lumped under “social justice” are truly justice issues. Sexual exploitation is the result of someone doing a wrong to another. Justice argues that the one who does the wrong be punished. Justice–wielding the sword to punish wrongdoers. In other cases, people are unjustly denied things they rightly deserve. Justice says that they should be given what they deserve. Justice–rewarding the one who does good.

But many of the things considered to be “social justice” are not justice at all. “Social justice” argues for feeding the hungry, giving homes to the homeless, providing money to those without money. Truly, some of the hungry, the homeless, and the impoverished are there because injustices have been done to them. Others are there because circumstances outside of their (and any others’) control has placed them there (medical conditions, children born into poverty, etc.) Others are there because they have placed themselves there via drug use, laziness, or lack of discipline.

Justice demands that we work to ameliorate the suffering of those who suffer unjustly–those in the first category. But justice does not argue that we make any effort to improve the conditions of those in the second and third categories.

Does this mean that we should not interest ourselves in the social concerns of the undeserving?

Absolutely not!

As Christians, we are called to live lives not of justice but of mercy.

“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”

Luke 6:27-36

Every Christian has received a great gift that he is completely unworthy of. While we were squandering our lives, abusing every gift that God had given us, God chose to give us grace upon grace–salvation of our souls, right standing before God. God poured out the judgment His justice demands on His own Son, while pouring out His mercy and grace on us.

We have been called to live in the same manner–absorbing the costs, pouring out the benefits. We have been called to live lives marked not by social justice, but by mercy.

Read my thoughts on justice and the purpose of government and continue checking back to hear me wrestle with how the issues of justice and mercy should inform a Christian’s political and non-political life.

Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 1)

1 Comment by

Last night, my siblings were discussing the apparently dead-in-production film version of The Hobbit and Peter Jackson’s lawsuit against New Line.

Several siblings remarked that Peter Jackson didn’t really NEED more money.

Their remarks struck me wrong for whatever reason and I added my comment: “The question isn’t whether Peter Jackson needs more money, but whether he deserves more money.”

It’s not an issue of who needs what or of “fairness”. It’s a matter of justice.

(Please realize that I know VERY little about this particular court case–I cannot even begin to answer the question I posed. That’s not the point.)

The point is that even in some of the most conservative of us (my family is pretty conservative as a whole), there lurks a secret socialist.

Now, it may well be that I am completely blowing this out of proportion. My siblings weren’t necessarily saying that Peter Jackson shouldn’t win this lawsuit because he didn’t need the money. Rather, I am almost certain that they were asking why he was pursuing the lawsuit, as though he needed more money.

But the conversation (along with my reading of Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation) got me to thinking about the purpose of government.

The governments of this earth have a God-ordained role to administer justice:

” Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
Romans 13:1-7

The God-instated role of government is to reward the one who does good and punish the one who does evil. In other words, governments are intended to administer justice.

The problem is that justice…well, justice isn’t always very NICE. Justice is often pretty “unfair”. Justice means that the poor man who steals from a rich man–even if he’s stealing just so that he and his family can eat–is punished and required to repay what he has stolen–even though the rich man has no need for the stolen money.

“People do not despise a thief
If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold;
He may have to give up all the substance of his house. ”
Proverbs 6:30-31

The mercy of the onlooker means he does not despise a thief who steals to satisfy himself when he is starving. The justice of the law demands that he restore sevenfold, regardless of the personal cost to himself.

Sometimes, even we conservatives look at the law and desire for it to be merciful–but that is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is not the administration of mercy but the administration of justice.

Please don’t write me off as a hard-hearted conservative yet! I’ll be exploring this issue further in the upcoming week. Stay tuned to hear my thoughts on social justice and the role of the church in society (which is quite different from the role of the government in society.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Who Killed Jesus?

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 2: Why Did Christ Die?

Who killed Jesus?

The Roman soldiers did. They were doing their job, carrying out the crucifixion. Jesus spoke of them when He said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Who killed Jesus?

Pilate did. He handed Jesus over to be crucified, knowing full well that He was innocent. Pilate was more interested in keeping the peace and in preserving his position than in administering justice.

Who killed Jesus?

The Sanhedrin did when they falsely accused and convicted Him of blasphemy, when they falsely accused Him of sedition and delivered Him up to Pilate to be crucified. They killed Him out of envy.

Who killed Jesus?

Judas did when he betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin for 30 pieces of silver, when he kissed Jesus’ cheek to direct the guards to Him.

Who killed Jesus?

The Jews did when they chanted for Pilate to “crucify Him”, when they said “Let His blood be upon our heads.”

Who killed Jesus?

We did.

“More important still, we ourselves are also guilty. If we were in their place, we would have done what they did. Indee, we have done it. For whenever we turn away from Christ, we ‘are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace’ (Heb. 6:6)….’Were you there when they crucified my Lord?’ the old negro spiritual asks. And we must answer, ‘Yes, we were there.’ Not as spectators only but as participants, guilty participants, plotting, scheming, betraying, bargaining, and handing him over to be crucified. We may try to wash our hands of responsibility like Pilate. But our attempt will be as futile as him. For there is blood on our hands. Before we can begin to see the cross as something done for us…we have to see it as something done by us….Indeed, ‘only the man who is prepared to own his share in the guilt of the cross’, wrote Canon Peter Green, ‘may claim his share in its grace’.”
John Stott, The Cross of Christ, p. 59-60

Who killed Jesus?

No one did. He gave His life for us.

“I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.”
John 10:17-18

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Under the Shadow of the Cross

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 1: The Centrality of the Cross

The Shadow of Death

John Stott describes Holman Hunt’s painting “The Shadow of Death” in the following terms:

“She looks startled (or so it seems) at her son’s cross-like shadow on the wall….Though the idea [for the painting] is historically fictitious, it is also theologically true. From Jesus’ youth, indeed even from his birth, the cross cast its shadow ahead of him. His death was central to his mission.”

How church history has viewed the cross:

Church history affirms the centrality of the cross to the Christian faith–despite (or perhaps because of) its incredibly negative connotations and propensity to be ridiculed.

How Jesus viewed the cross:

Jesus made no secret that He would suffer, die, and rise again. Throughout His ministry, He speaks of His hour. This hour did not come in teaching or in working miracles. Rather, it was in His death that His hour had come.

“‘The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified….Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? “Father, save Me from this hour”? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name.’ Then a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.'”
John 12:23, 27-28

How the apostles viewed the cross:

While the sermons of Acts do not explicitly detail the theological implications of the cross, they do all mention the cross and many allude to its implications by using the term “hung on a tree” to describe crucifixion. This phrase directs the hearer to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which proclaims a curse on all who are hung on a tree–alluding to the substitutionary nature of the cross (He became a curse for us, Galatians 3:13). Additionally, the apostles’ emphasis on the resurrection is an implicit reference to the cross, since the resurrection is the reversal of a prior sentence of death.

In the epistles, the doctrine of the cross is central to the writers’ messages. Paul, Peter, John, and the author of Hebrews all go to great length to describe the implications of the cross and its centrality to the Christian life. In the Revelation, Jesus’ primary identity is as the Lamb of God–not a reference primarily to His humility but to His death as a lamb slain for the sins of the world.

Summary:

The Cross is central to the Christian faith and is the biggest distinguisher between believers and unbelievers.

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
I Corinthians 1:18

“In the Christian theology of history, the death of Christ is the central point of history; here all the roads of the past converge; hence all the roads of the future diverge.”
~Stephen Neil

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)