The Reformation
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 60, No. 1 – Fall 2017
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. By Simon Gathercole. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. 128 pages. Paperback, $20.00.
Simon Gathercole, senior lecturer in New Testament in the University of Cambridge’s faculty of divinity, is familiar to readers interested in New Testament studies. In Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul, Gathercole succinctly but ably maintains that “Christ’s death for our sins in our place, instead of us, is in fact a vital ingredient in the biblical … understanding of the atonement” (14). Rather than build a case specifically for penal (or other understandings of ) atonement, Gathercole’s focus is on Christ’s death as being in our place not only “as a representative but also in Christ’s taking our place as a substitute” (23). The short introductory chapter rounds out with a survey of contemporary criticisms of substitution, with Gathercole making clear his concern is with the charge that substitution is an unbiblical understanding.
Chapter one, the longest of the book, examines three of the leading nonsubstitutionary approaches to the atonement: the Tübingen view, the Interchange view, and the Apocalyptic Deliverance view. Each of these views is subjected to individual criticisms, but all three stumble on Paul’s hamartiology. Gathercole argues compellingly that it is “this problem of a lack of attention to sins plural [that] is a general difficulty with those approaches to the atonement that make representation of liberation an all-encompassing explanation of the death of Christ” (48).
The second and third chapters work in tandem to demonstrate, by way of two case studies, Paul’s affirmation of substitution. Chapter two focuses on the Pauline claim that Christ “died for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3), with chapter three addressing the claim that He “died for us” (Rom 5:6–8). After establishing the centrality of the gospel to Paul’s former claim, Gathercole discusses which “scriptures” (“according to the scriptures”) Paul has in mind, concluding it is Isaiah 53 that “probably lies behind” (64) 1 Corinthians 15:3. Establishing first the substitutionary elements of Isaiah 53, Gathercole notes the Old Testament rule is that one dies for one’s own sins, which makes this passage the “aberration” on which Paul builds.
Turning in the third chapter to Romans 5:6–8, Gathercole argues that Paul intentionally sets Christ’s death against “other well-known vicarious deaths from the Greco-Roman world” (86) which his readers would likely recognize. Important to his case is Gathercole’s careful handling of του ἀγαθου in v. 7, which he concludes refers to “the good person” (rather than a “good cause”). On this basis it is maintained as “very likely” that “Paul is tapping into a classical tradition … and comparing heroic vicarious deaths in the Greco-Roman world (real and literary) in verse 7 with the death of Jesus in verse 8” (90). Paul knows there exists a note of similarity— namely, a death of one person for others—between the classic instances of vicarious death. There are significant differences, as well—not least that Christ’s death is for “enemies” (Rom 5:10) and “impious” (Rom 5:6). Thus, “for Paul’s comparison in Romans 5:6–8 to make sense, we must see Paul comparing the substitutionary deaths of others with the substitutionary death of Jesus” (106).
Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul accomplishes Gathercole’s purpose with focus and clarity. He capably demonstrates that “substitution can and should be regarded as integral to the biblical picture of the atonement” (111).
