The Upper Register

The story that frames the atonement, part 1

Andrew Perriman raises a good question for those of us who cherish the penal substitution view of the atonement as primary and central. He asks: "What is the story that frames and makes sense of this understanding of Jesus' death?"

At the outset, I want to say that I fully sympathize with N. T. Wright's concern to place the mission and work of Jesus within the narrative framework of Israel's story, a concern articulated well in Jesus and the Victory of God. However, I believe he makes the mistake of failing to place the Israel narrative within the larger Adam narrative. Modern theology since Barth has been fond of the particularism of biblical theology, but we must also see that the particularism of biblical theology is in the service of an ultimate universalism. (I'm using the word "universalism" here not in the sense of universal salvation, but a soteriology that overcomes the Jew-Gentile distinction by addressing the plight of all sinners in Adam.)

So what is the larger Adam narrative, and how does the Israel narrative fit in with it? The Adam narrative, of course, is the story of creation, Adam's rebellion and fall, and God's promise concerning the S/seed (both in the singular and in the collective sense) of the woman. The Seed (singular) will crush the serpent by means of his own suffering, a foreshadow of the death of Christ (Gen 3:15). Genesis 1-3 is foundational to the whole Bible. Everything that comes after it must be read in light of it. The book of Genesis itself subordinates the Israel narrative to the Adam narrative.

Now the Seed promise of Gen 3:15 -- so brief that it is almost an enigma -- is fleshed out and expanded in the Abrahamic promise. The Abrahamic promise reiterates the essence of the Seed promise of Gen 3:15, but it places greater emphasis on the collective dimension of the seed (Israel) together with the promised land for the seed to dwell in. The promised land is clearly to be understood as the restored paradise that was lost in Gen 3 (see Gen 13:10 which describes the land as "well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD").

The promise then unfolds in two stages:  (a) a first-level fulfillment on the typological layer of Israel's inheritance in the land and (b) a second-level fulfillment in Christ as the individual Seed and those who belong to him as the corporate seed. Of course, the two stages do not unfold in a smooth evolution, for there is a rupture dividing the two:  Israel was a corporate reenactment of Adam's failure in the garden, leading to the rupture of the exile. Nevertheless, because of God's irrevocable promises to Abraham, the exile is not the end of the story. After the exile is the return and rebuilding of the temple in the post-exilic period. But this was but a small foretaste of the eschatological glories of the second-level fulfillment. The post-exilic community and its rebuilt temple were so small and insignificant, we come to the end of the Old Testament crying out for a greater fulfillment. 

Now the first-level fulfillment creates a world of types that become a new promise finding its fulfillment in Christ. Israel as God's holy people dwelling in God's holy land is a type of the elect dwelling in the new heavens and the new earth. When the reality to which the types pointed comes, the reality is described using typological language. Thus the elect (both Jew and Gentile) are called "the Israel of God" and heaven is called "the eternal inheritance." Jesus himself assumes the three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king -- offices first established with living examples in the old covenant economy (e.g., Moses, Aaron, David). With regard to the priestly office in particular, Christ's atoning death is described as the fulfillment of the Levitical system of sacrifice, the final purification for sin when the true High Priest entered the true holy place once for all. The Levitical system was put in place so that a holy God could dwell in the midst of a sinful and impure people.

Israel's conditional tenure in the land (conditional on faithful obedience to the Law) was a corporate re-enactment of Adam's probation in the garden. And just as Adam sinned and was expelled, so Israel was sent into exile for her violation of the Law. This then sets the stage for Jesus to be described as the true, obedient Israelite, the faithful king who kept God's Law and gave rest to his people in the land. This is merely the typological way of saying that Jesus is the second Adam. Christ is the second Adam and true Israel in whom the exile is reversed and a greater paradise is attained.

So there are actually two narrative frameworks (Adam and Israel) with the Israel narrative nesting within the broader Adam narrative (creation, fall, redemption, consummation). The mission and work of Jesus must be seen through the mutually interpreting lens of both narratives. In the order of understanding, we start with the Israel narrative since that forms the most immediate historical context for the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah. But since the Israel narrative is itself a reproduction in type and shadow of the broader Adam narrative, the interpretive framework provided by the Israel narrative was intended by God to point beyond its own particularity to the universalism of the Adam narrative. In Israel's covenant breaking and exile, we see the covenant breaking and expulsion of Adam from the garden. And since we are all in Adam, we see ourselves in Israel's story too. Yet, just as Jesus takes Israel's story to the cross and beyond to the resurrection, so he completes Adam's story at the same time, so that through his accursed death we have passed through judgment and have emerged on the other side having won, by his merit, the right to eat of the tree of life and live forever with him in the heavenly inheritance.

For more on "two level fulfillment" see this selection from Meredith G. Kline's magnum opus, Kingdom Prologue.

To be continued ...

Preface to the King James Version, quote 2

Here is the second quote from the Preface to the King James Version.

Translation Necessary

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me. [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. [Isa 29:11]

Let us be thankful for the great tradition of the English Bible from Tyndale to the KJV to any number of modern English versions, and let us "eat the kernel" they provide.

Where does N. T. Wright stand on the Atonement?

This is a response to Steve Rives's comment on an earlier post of mine.

N. T. Wright is unclear at best on this whole cluster of issues at the heart of the gospel (the nature of sin, the wrath of God, substitutionary atonement). It is true that you can find statements that sound traditional and use some traditional words, but the thrust of his overall vision and cast of thought is in a different direction. 

Wright uses traditional terms with non-traditional meanings.

For example, he will often speak of "substitution" and "substitutionary atonement." But he does not (normally) use the term "penal substitution" when describing his view. He will say that Jesus was substituted in place of Israel, or that he was identified with sinful Israel. But he does not say that God inflicted the penal wrath on Jesus that we deserved for our sins.

Or take the statement that Steve Rives quotes: "God the creator would bring people back into bodily life, to face the consequences of their evil deeds." Notice that he does not say, "God the creator would bring people back into bodily life, to punish them for their evil deeds." Instead he uses the ambiguous phrase, "to face the consequences of their evil deeds." Such language could be intended in an orthodox sense, but it could also be taken in a watered-down sense in which sin brings certain negative "consequences" in its wake by the impersonal laws of moral cause and effect.

Here are some pieces of evidence which suggest that there is something wrong with Wright's view of the atonement.

First, in his commentary on Romans in The New Interpreter's Bible (2002), Wright has this to say about Romans 8:3 ("he condemned sin in the flesh"):

God, says Paul, condemned sin. Paul does not, unlike some, say that God condemned Jesus. True, God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus; but this is some way from saying, as many have, that God desired to punish someone and decided to punish Jesus on everyone's behalf. Paul's statement is more subtle than that. It is not merely about a judicial exchange, the justice of which might then be questioned (and indeed has been questioned). It is about sentence of death being passed on "sin" itself, sin as a force or power capable of deceiving human beings, taking up residence within them, and so causing their death (7:7-25) ... For Paul, what was at stake was not simply God's judicial honor, in some Anselmic sense, but the mysterious power called sin, at large and destructive within God's world, needing to be brough to book, to have sentence passed and executed upon it, so that, with its power broken, God could then give the life sin would otherwise prevent (p. 578). 

Note that sin is here viewed as an impersonal force or power that blocks humans from enjoying life. On the cross, God condemned this impersonal force so that he could then give us life.

Second, Wright endorsed The Lost Message of Jesus (2003) by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann in which they said that the traditional presentation of the atonement is a barrier to faith for many people because it seems to portray the cross as "cosmic child abuse -- a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." (See quote in context here).  Wright continues to stand by his endorsement, even after this passage became controversial.

Third, Wright's book Simply Christian (2006) is supposed to be his presentation of the essence of the Christian faith. Here, if anywhere, you would expect a clear, simple statement of the gospel. But it is not there. The book has many good things to say, but it doesn't explain the basic gospel -- "Christ died for our sins." Forget about imputed righteousness. We'll set that debate aside. He didn't even explain the basic concept that (a) God is holy and hates sin, (b) we are sinners deserving his just wrath, and (c) the only way we can be right with God is through the death of Christ which satisfied God's justice and gives us forgiveness and acceptance before God. Instead, we find statements like this:

God's plan to rescue the world from evil would be put into effect by evil doing its worst to the Servant--that is, to Jesus himself--and thereby exhausting its power (p. 108) ... It was time for the evil which had dogged Jesus's footsteps throughout his career--the shrieking maniacs, the conspiring Herodians, the carping Pharisees, the plotting chief priests, the betrayer among his own disciples, the whispering voices within his own soul--to gather into one great tidal wave of evil that would crash with full force over his head. So he spoke of the  Passover bread as his own body that would be given on behalf of his friends, as he went out to take on himself the weight of evil so that they wouldn't have to bear it themselves (p. 110).

This is all very consistent with his earlier formulations in chapter 12 of Jesus and the Victory of God (1996). You can see how, on Wright's theory, he can say with a clear conscience that Jesus' death was substitutionary, since Jesus let evil do its worst on himself so that it would not have to do so on us. But it is much harder to see how it is penal, i.e., relating to divine punishment. "Evil doing its worst on Jesus" is not the same thing as "Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood ... so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:24-26 ESV). 

Fourth, Wright wrote a piece in 2007 titled The Cross and the Caricatures defending his endorsement of the Chalke book and attacking the solid defense of substitutionary atonement titled Pierced for our Transgressions (2007) by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach as "deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical." For his part, Wright affirms "a version" of the penal substitutionary theory, as long as it is subordinated to the Christus Victor theory. The "version" that he holds is that Christ bore the brunt of human evil, not that he bore the wrath of God that we deserved. In other words, his "version" of substitutionary atonement is not what you and I are thinking of when we use those words. It is true that in the first half of "The Cross and the Caricatures," Wright makes some comforting sounding statements, but in the second half you start to see the cracks in the subtle way he uses terms. As far as I know, this essay is the one of the rare places in his writings where he does use "penal substitution" to describe his own view, but he makes clear the sense in which he means the term. Commenting on the infamous Chalke "cosmic child abuse" quote, he writes:

You could take the paragraph to mean (a) on the cross, as an expression of God’s love, Jesus took into and upon himself the full force of all the evil around him, in the knowledge that if he bore it we would not have to; but this, which amounts to a form of penal substitution, is quite different from other forms of penal substitution, such as the mediaeval model of a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son. In other words, there are many models of penal substitution, and the vengeful-father-and-innocent-son story is at best a caricature of the true one.

There you have it. Wright thinks his theory of Jesus exhausting the full force of evil is "a form of penal substitution." Meanwhile, the other form (the orthodox view) is caricatured as  "a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son."

Fifth, see this 2007 interview with Trevin Wax where he goes over the Chalke controversy once more and then adds his own sloppy caricature alongside Chalke's:

So we have to understand the doctrine of penal substitution within the Scriptural framework, within which it makes sense, rather than within this very low grade thing that I’ve been a naughty boy, God wants to punish me, and for some reason, he punishes someone else, so phew! I’m alright. OK. For a five-year-old, that’s fine. That’ll maybe do it. But, actually let’s grow up! We’re not talking about five-year-olds here; we’re talking about grown men and women who ought to know better, to be honest.

Finally, John Piper has a section in The Future of Justification (2007) where he points out Wright's mixed signals on substitutionary atonement and respectfully asks him to clarify his position ("A Regrettable Endorsement: Steve Chalke's The Lost Message of Jesus," pp. 47-52). Unfortunately, Wright did not respond to Piper's specific query in Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009).

So where does N. T. Wright stand on the atonement? I have a hard time being as charitable as Piper, who tries to believe the best and merely asks for clarification. To me, it looks more like a case of using orthodox labels to refer to a position that is not orthodox. At the end of the day, for Bishop Wright, sin is an impersonal evil force, not personal rebellion against God; sin has bad consequences, but does not elicit God's punitive wrath against the sinner; and the cross is to be understood as some version of the Christus Victor theory in which Christ defeats evil by letting it do its worst to him, not as a penal satisfaction of divine justice.

Preface to the King James Version, quote 1

The translators of the King James Version (1611) penned a lengthy preface to their work titled "The Translators to the Reader." Their principal concern was to respond to certain objections that they anticipated would be raised against their work. But what interests me are two delightful passages, one an encomium praising the Scriptures, and the other an explanation of why it is necessary to have the Scriptures translated out of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the vulgar tongues of the nations. The two quotes are actually connected and form one continuous portion of the Preface. I'll give the first quote today and the second quote tomorrow.

The Praise of the Holy Scriptures

It is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal's meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a Panary of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physician's shop (Saint Basil calleth it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; finally a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter* -- verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form -- God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects -- light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof -- fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

[*I have taken the liberty of changing commas to dashes after "the matter," "the form," "the effects," and "the end and reward of the study thereof." I believe this makes the sense clearer.]

Cyrus the Great

Wikipedia says this about Cyrus the Great:

Cyrus the Great (c. 600 BC or 576 – December 530 BC), also known as Cyrus II of Persia and Cyrus the Elder, was the first Zoroastrian Persian Shāhanshāh (Emperor). He was the founder of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid dynasty, which was an empire without precedent — a world-empire of major historical importance.

It was under his own rule that the empire embraced all previous civilized states of the ancient Near East, expanded vastly, and eventually conquered most of Southwest Asia and much of Central Asia, from Egypt and the Hellespont in the west to the Indus River in the east, to create the largest empire the world had yet seen.

Yet what the Bible says about this great man is focused not on his vast empire but on his obscure role in restoring the Jews to the land and encouraging them to rebuild the temple. For example, Yahweh through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah said:

"Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped,  to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: 'I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron, I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD,  the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.' ... 'I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,' says the LORD of hosts" (Isa 45:1-4, 13 ESV).

John L. McKenzie comments:

That an Israelite prophet should view the conquests of Cyrus purely as directed to the restoration of Israel may seem an intolerably narrow view of history. But it is a fact that the restoration of a Jewish community in Palestine has had a more lasting effect than anything else accomplished by Cyrus, who has been given in history the title of the Great. In the light of subsequent developments, the prophet does not show narrow vision; he shows an astonishing insight into the meaning of history.

[Second Isaiah (The Anchor Bible 20; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 79.]

How often we view world affairs from a fleshly point of view, rather than seeing things as God sees them. The great movers and shakers of the City of Man are nothing in God's eyes. They are but tools in his hand for the accomplishment of his eternal purpose in Christ.

The danger of de-personalizing God's wrath

D. A. Carson makes an excellent point here in his critique of N. T. Wright -- but it applies to many emergent and emergent-friendly authors as well, e.g., Scot McKnight. Carson writes:

At the end of the day, the central notion of sin in Wright’s thought is that it is somehow anarchic rebellion against shalom, and the triumph at the end is the restoration of shalom. What is lost is the intensely personal dimension of sin: it is rebellion against God, and he is regularly portrayed as the most offended party (cf. Ps 51!).

Of course, a low view of human sin and God's wrath goes hand-in-glove with a low view of Christ's atonement. N. T. Wright almost never speaks of "sin" and instead speaks of "evil." Scot McKnight speaks of "cracked eikons" (humans as images of God). In this view, the cross was God's way of dealing with "evil" in the world, or of restoring the image of God, but rarely is it described as the quenching of God's wrath directed against sin or the satisfaction of divine justice.

Read D. A. Carson's RBL review of Evil and the Justice of God by N. T. Wright.

Hermann Cremer's Biblico-theological Lexicon, Pt 4

Elpis - hope, i.e., expectation of something future, and, indeed, expectation of good

Cremer says that in Classical Greek, "hope" has the idea of some future and wished-for good, together with a probability that it will be obtained. But because it is only a probability and not a certainty, there is also sometimes a sense of anxiety and even fear.

By contrast, in biblical (LXX + NT) usage, hope is

a dearly cherished and apparently well-grounded ... expectation and prospect of some desired good ... The tone and language in the LXX clearly shows that hope in this sense possesses a psychological definiteness,--the certainty and clearness of its goal, as well as the definiteness of object,--which all hope apart from Scripture was destitute of .... N.T. hope, in a word, includes the prospect of a state wherein all needs shall be supplied, all wants satisfied, all the hindrances of life and results of sin removed, raising upon the basis of trusted Scripture promise and the facts of redemption a future full of bliss, in contrast  with the unsatisfying present. 

The ultimate ground for such certain hope in the NT is the resurrection of Christ (1 Pet 1:3).

Cremer has this to say about Galatians 5:5 ("For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness"):

ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, where δικ. must be taken as the subjective genitive, and not as the genitive of the object; for this latter would not be in keeping with the Pauline doctrine, according to which righteousness, as the privilege and state of the believer, is already present, cf. 2 Tim iv.8; Gal. ii.17; Rom. v.1 sqq. Thus rendered, ver. 5 stands in striking contrast with ver. 4, we wait in faith--wherein we are justified--for the hope which righteousness has.

This is a good response to N. T. Wright who claims that present justification is by faith but future justification at the day of judgment will take place on the basis of the totality of the life lived (in Paul and the Mosaic Law [ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], p. 144).

Hermann Cremer's Biblico-theological Lexicon, Pt 3

Parakletos - he who has been or may be called to help, a pleader, proxy, or advocate

Another sample from Cremer's Lexicon, this time from a word that does not occur in the LXX. He interprets the word παράκλητος (parakletos) in a unique way as "a proxy, or advocate, one who comes forward in behalf of and as the representative of another." To support this interpretation, he cites Diogenes Laertius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (3rd century AD): 

To a chattering fellow who was soliciting [the philosopher Bion] for aid, he said, "I will do what is sufficient for you, if you will send deputies to me, and forbear to come yourself [ἐὰν παρακλήτους πέμψῃς καὶ αὐτὸς μὴ ἔλθῃς]" (iv.50) (Yonge translation - scroll down to section III, second paragraph, second sentence).

Cremer then takes this meaning "deputies" or "proxies" who speak on behalf of another as the basic meaning, and then proceeds to apply it to the five NT passages (once of Christ in 1 John 2:1 and four times of the Spirit in the Gospel of John).

1 John 2:1 says: "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (ESV). Cremer comments: "Thus Christ, in 1 John ii.1, is termed our substitutionary, intercessory advocate." Christ is our deputy or proxy or substitute who pleads "with the Father" [πρὸς τὸν πατέρα] on our behalf. This is supported by the next verse, which says that Christ is the propitiation for our sins (cited by Cremer).

So far, Cremer's interpretation produces a traditional result. However, when he moves to the four instances in the Gospel of John, he comes up with something novel. Traditionally these are translated as "Comforter" or "Helper." But Cremer takes his "proxy" interpretation and consistently applies it here, although the Spirit is not speaking on our behalf but Christ's. He writes:

Now, when Christ designates the Holy Spirit as Paraclete, John xiv.16, ἄλλος παράκλ., we might suppose that He is this in the same sense as Christ, 1 John ii.1. But a closer comparison of the two passages shows how little real resemblance there is; and if we compare John xiv.26, "he will ... bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you," xv.26, "he will bear witness about me," xvi.7, 14, "he will glorify me," etc., it will be clear that the Holy Spirit is called παράκλητος because He undertakes Christ's office to be a παράκλητος, or becomes Christ's substitute in this:  it will be evident ... that the Spirit, as the representative of Christ's office, is above all the representative of His person and cause.

Don't you like that? "The Spirit ... is above all the representative of His person and cause." Theologically, this fits well with the fact that elsewhere the Spirit is called "the Spirit of Christ" (Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11; cp. Acts 2:33; 16:7; Gal 4:6). Or, as J. I. Packer said somewhere, the Holy Spirit's ministry is a spotlight ministry. Just as a spotlight illumines a beautiful building at night, so the Spirit's role is to point us to Christ.

The Way to Avoid Legalism

"The way to avoid legalism is to believe that, as the Law teaches, only the perfectly righteous may be admitted into heaven. This counterintuitive premise accomplishes two things in a single blow: it crushes legalism and clarifies the meaning of grace. First, it crushes legalism because legalism cannot get off the ground unless the standard has first been lowered. But if the Law requires perfect righteousness, clearly the half-baked, imperfect obedience promoted by legalism will not do.

"Second, it clarifies the meaning of grace. Grace is that God provides and accepts the imputed righteousness of Christ, in place of our own inherent righteousness demanded by the Law, as the righteousness by which the unrighteous can attain heaven. Now that’s grace! The true Gospel, then, presupposes the Law as its antithetical counterpart. Otherwise grace is no longer grace." 

 

From my paper Countering Ten Arguments Against the Law-Gospel Paradigm.

 

HT: Erol Bortucene (not that I wasn't aware of my own paper, of course, but I liked Erol's editorial selection of these two paragraphs).

Hermann Cremer's Biblico-theological Lexicon, Pt 2

Let me give you a taste of the insights that can be found in Cremer's Biblico-theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek.

Bebaioo - "to make firm or reliable"

Cremer helpfully points out that in Classical Greek the verb typically takes an impersonal object, e.g., to confirm laws or promises. This usage is known in the NT as well. But in the NT it is also used in a way that is hardly known in Classical usage, namely, with a personal object:

"... our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:8 NASB).

"And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ" (2 Cor 1:21 ESV).

"... rooted and built up in him and established in the faith ..." (Col 2:7 ESV).

"... it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them" (Heb 13:9 ESV). 

Cremer writes:

The union of bebaioun with a personal object, hardly known in classical Greek,--certainly not at all in the manner of the N.T.,--is distinctive of the N.T. ... The N.T. bebaioun with personal object does not refer to the character or bearing of the object; it signifies a confirming of the person's state of salvation, preservation in a state of grace ... He confirms us in Christ, so that we become ever more assured and certain of Him ... This combination of bebaioun with a personal object was anticipated by the LXX. Ps xli.13.

Were one confined to Thayer or BDAG, one would not gain this insight about the difference between the Classical and Biblical (LXX + NT) usage of this theologically important verb.