Greg Koukl on my favorite radio podcast/program on the topic of the atonement: they get right into it right away.

http://www.kfuoam.org/mp3/Issues7/Issues_Etc_Jul_17b.mp3

-Barron

In my opinion, any word study of biblical terminology must begin with Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament or (as a second choice) with Brown’s New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Both sources investigate the meanings of New Testament words in in their Hebrew OT usage, LXX usage, classical Greek usage, and finally New Testament usage. No word study can begin without such investigation.

Once the Bible has been investigated, we can turn to the development of justice within the Christian tradition. Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification is the best historical work I know of. Another book is The Justification Reader by Thomas Oden. I know the topic is justice–broadly conceived–but no Christian doctrine of justice can proceed without a consideration of justification as well. What Paul calls “the righteousness of God,” after all, can just as legitimately be translated as “the justice of God.”

Of course, the doctrine of justification is a topic of huge debate, once again, thanks to the so-called “new perspective on Paul,” pioneered by James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright. Dunn sets out his perspective on justification in his Theology of Paul the Apostle and commentary on Romans. (He’s also got a forthcoming book simply entitled, The New Perspective on Paul.) Wright lays out his perspective in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Peter Stuhlmacher critiques the “new perspective” in Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, as does Mark Seifrid in Christ, our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. If you’re really interested in a detailed, academic critique of the “new perspective,” see D.A. Carson et al, Justification and Variegated Nomism (2 vols.).

The most influential secular treatment of justice is John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, and the standard libertarian critique of it is Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. A critique of “social justice” from a classically liberal perspective can be found in Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice by Friedrich von Hayek.

From a specifically theological perspective, my former teacher Miroslav Volf has written an interesting book on criminal justice entitled Beyond Retribution. Finally, there’s a new book edited by P.C. Kemeny, Church, State, and Public Justice: Five Views.

I’m sure there are many other books out there, but these are the ones I know of, have read, or have seen at the bookstore. Hopefully, they’re a good start.

George

When you say, “what is relevant takes precedence over tradition,” you mean in terms of starting our conversations with postmoderns, correct? If so, I agree with you. Postmoderns–and unbelievers generally–will not be interested in the Christian tradition until they see its relevance within their frame of reference. If, however, you’re saying that relevance is more theologically normative than tradition, I would have to disagree. (But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.) Just wanted to make sure we’re on the same page.

Apropos of various theories of the atonement, Beilby and Eddy’s new book, The Nature of the Atonement:Four Views, looks like interesting reading.

George

I would like to do a study on the concept of Justice in Biblical literature. Over lunch, you had mentioned the idea that “Justice” is a word used frequently in scripture and often burdened with differing understandings by the reader. I completely agree. Just as “peace” or “shalom” has a much more specific meaning that our modern western understanding of “peace” I would love to do a biblical study on “justice.” Any good resource recommendations?

In my opinion, there are two false assumptions at work in these articles. (1) The notion that we must choose between between penal substituion and Christ Victor views of the atonement. In fact, the New Testament and the Fathers speak both of Christ dying in our place and of Christ’s death being a victory over sin. When it comes to theories of the atonement, it’s a matter of both/and rather than either/or. (2) The notion that the penal substitution theory is responsible for the division between justification and sanctification (broadly construed to include “social justice” concerns. In fact, very Christian traditions that incorporate penal substition into their atonement theology have a strong emphasis on sanctification, and even the proper arrangement of society. One thinks, here, of the various wings of the Reformed church, beginning in Geneva and continuing into Scotland, Holland, and the American colonies of the Puritans. Rather, it seems to me that the highly individualistic understanding of salvation is a uniquely American phenomenon, based on our highly individualistic culture, and therefore separable from penal substitution per se. Also, the utterly baleful result of dispensationalism has been to make social concerns irrelevant (since we’ll all be raptured out of here). Also, the extreme once-saved-always-saved doctrine of dispensationalists and Baptists (which is not the same thing as traditional Reformed doctrines of perseverance) utterly separates justification from sanctification.

A good, representative sample of mainstream evangelical thinking on the atonement is JOhn Stott’s The Cross of Christ, which, while giving penal substitution pride of place, nonetheless recognizes the full-orbed dimensions of the atonement, including Christus Victor and moral influence theories. And one can hardly fault John Stott for being slack of social concern.

One final terminological pet peeve: The term “social justice” is an odd one. What other kind of justice is there? Justice is an inherently social term, the status of right relations among people. Calling justice social justice is a bit like calling a river a wet river.

George