No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
The words of the old Gospel hymn give us a succinct statement of the theory of Substitutionary Atonement. Jesus brings us to God by what he does, or suffers, as our substitute, in our place. Sinful man's obligations under the law are met by Jesus on his behalf. Because Jesus bore my punishment I do not have to bear it; because he paid my debt I do not have to pay it; because he died the criminal's death which I deserved I do not have to die it.
page 341 note 1 cf., e.g., Dillistone, F. W., The Christian Understanding of Atonement (Nisbet, London, 1968)Google Scholar, and the discussion arising from it on Karl Barth's use of substitution in the March, June, August, and November issues of Theology, Vol. LXXIV (19701).
page 342 note 1 Mackintosh, H. R., “Principal Denney as a Theologian” (Expository Times, Vol. XXVIII (1917), p. 491).Google Scholar
page 342 note 2 The Death of Christ was first published in 1902. To answer points raised by reviewers and correspondents The Atonement and the Modern Mind was published in the next year. A revised edition of both together was issued in 1911. References to both works are to the pagination of the 1911 edition.
page 346 note 1 This of course was written before Dodd's, C. H. study of the ἱλ⋯σκεσθαι group of words (J.T.S., Vol. XXXII (1931), pp. 352–360Google Scholar; also The Bible and the Greeks (London, 1935), pp. 82–95)Google Scholar. Dodd's argument that the basic idea in the LXX must be a covering or expiation rather than propitiation seems, for a time, to have been accepted almost with relief by English scholars. But perhaps the idea of propitiation should not be dropped so easily. Apart from the commentaries cf. Morris, L., The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London, 1955), chaps, iv and vGoogle Scholar; and Hill, D., Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (London, 1967), pp. 23–48Google Scholar. Though Hill is less happy about a cultic background to propitiation and prefers to find it in 4 Mace. 17.22.
page 348 note 1 The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, pp. 97–115.
page 350 note 1 F. W. Dillistone, op. cit., pp. 203–15.
page 353 note 1 This leads him to criticise the traditional idea of the impassibility of God. If sin makes a difference to him, and the need for reconciliation indicates that it does, then he is not immutable in the generally accepted sense of the term. cf. The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 237.
page 353 note 2 This ‘penal’ nature of Jesus' suffering is worked out by Taylor, Vincent in Jesus and His Sacrifice (London, 1937), esp. pp. 285–290Google Scholar; and defended against criticisms of Lofthaouse, W. F. in an article in The London Quarterly Review, Vol. GLXIV (January 1939), pp. 45–55, esp. pp. 49ff.Google Scholar
page 354 note 1 Letters of Principal James Denney to W. Robertson Nicoll, p. 2. The reference is to Hastings Rashdall's Cambridge University Sermon of 1897 later published in The Expositor, series 4, Vol. VIII, pp. 37–50.
page 355 note 1 Denney read Kierkegaard before he was generally known in England. In 1905 he asked Robertson Nicoll whether there would be any interest in a book of selections from Kierkegaard translated by Dr Grieve, and commented that he had himself thought of translating the study of Abraham's sacrifice from the German. He thinks the Journal would be interesting, but adds, ‘His more formal works do not seem to me likely to have any vogue in this country. They are as much eccentric as original, and with sober minds a little paradox goes a long way’ (Letters of Principal James Denney to W. Robertson Nicoll, p. 55).