James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 208 pages.

The appropriately titled The Nature of the Atonement attempts to shed light on the complicated character of this biblical principle by presenting and critiquing four dominant theological constructions that have attempted to encapsulate the particularities of the atonement. The book successfully explicates the complexities of atonement theory by exploring a number of different views and intentionally clarifying that the Church has not recognized any atonement model as the official or dominant perspective. This unsettled doctrine has consistently generated clashes of disagreements among theologians, perhaps more than any other theological proposition, and this book adequately expresses this dilemma. Without glossing over the messiness of atonement theory, Beilby and Eddy invite the reader to become spectators and perhaps participants to this dialogue, if one is daring enough to engage the issues.

James Beilby

In the introduction the editors set the stage for the reader and the scheme for the rest of the book by giving a general overview of the historical development of the atonement. Scanning from the early church into the contemporary scene, a number of atonement theories are given attention in this section with a brief summary, thus calling to attention the theological implications of each perspective. Unfortunately not every strand of thought can be given adequate consideration in this work, but it does offer individuals a starting point for a more substantive survey, if one desires to do so.

The next four chapters of the book provide the reader with an in depth summary of four popular views on the atonement: Christus Victor, Penal Substitution, Healing view, and Kaleidoscope view. One of the strengths of this book is that each chapter is written by an individual who personally holds to that theory, whereby the reader gleans the benefits of having an insider perspective, as each author’s theological investment shines through. Some may criticize the demeanor of some contributors as being arrogant, especially those who maintain that their view is the dominant model, but modest approaches would defeat the purpose of the book in bringing out the specific issues at stake and their implications for theological reflection. The writers uphold a level of persuasive writing that reveals the historical and contemporary nature of atonement thought as multifaceted and spirited. Additionally, each contributor is given an opportunity to respond to the other perspectives, and they do so in a critical, yet respectful manner. The various responses at the end of each chapter further elucidates this theological jockeying, and is also valuable in pointing out the weaknesses of each position that only a dissenting voice can adequately address. The inclusion of the Kaleidoscope view is questionable in that it can essentially make a single unique claim–it gives equal validation to all the other views. Consequently, the only legitimate criticism it can offer is to the arrogance of other views who parade as the dominant theory. In its place this book would have benefited greatly from including a subjective view of the atonement, such as the moral influence theory. In leaving this out, the volume lacks one of the most dominant perspectives that has continuously arisen within the Church. With this exception, Beilby and Eddy’s book successfully navigates the multivalent field of atonement theory.

The Fall Festivals of God: prophetic rehearsals with relevance for today. Part of the Messianic Foundations series.

In the epistle of Romans, our teacher Paul speaks to the non-Jewish believers reminding them that they have been grafted-in. “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you” (Romans 11:17-18, NAS).

Messianic Foundations
Artwork by Steve Grier © 1997 RBC Ministries. Used by permission.

Much has been said about this “root,” and many theories bantered about as to Paul’s intent. It is not likely that we will achieve consensus in this article, but Paul is clear that the root supports the non-Jewish believer. Biblically, Israel is referred to as an olive tree in Jeremiah 11:15-17 and Hosea 14:6, so the Scriptural precedent indicates that Paul intends the reader to understand the tree to be the believing remnant of Israel. By personal experience and an ever-widening understanding of the Scriptures, this author agrees with Paul, that this root is our ancient Biblical heritage—an inheritance with its origins in faithful Judaism¹.

Theologians discuss “progressive revelation,” and find the pages of the Bible replete with an ongoing, ever expanding and consistent manifestation of the character of God. Such Biblical understanding is often crucial in effective evangelism and apologetics, drawing the plan of the Almighty out like a treasure map for the explorer to find.

By searching through the treasures waiting us in our own Biblical heritage, in this case the Fall Feasts of Leviticus 23, untold riches can be found. Some may have been taught that Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot, are “Jewish” festivals and therefore “dead” in a modern faith expression. If the observance of these appointed times were strictly ethnic, such teaching would certainly be true and any application empty legalism. But in a strictly Biblical context, the only context we should concern ourselves with, and the heritage that is ours to claim, this wholesale rejection of the feast days is both unfair and unscriptural. It denies believers of every denominational creed their own God-given heritage.

The LORD spoke again to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘The LORD’S appointed times which you shall proclaim …” (Lev 23:1, 2).

God calls them His appointed times. At no point does the Architect of our faith refer to them as the “Feast of Israel,” or the “Jewish High Holy days.” To do so takes them out of Scriptural context, improperly transfers them into an ethnic context, and in our innocence creates a sense of distance that makes us feel they have no place in our Christian faith. This steals the treasures that God intended for His faithful remnant to have; it robs them of their inheritance, and hinders our understanding of the Bible.