The Spirit of the Atonement: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s Death and Resurrection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My only concern about this article has to do with the scientific methodology employed by the author. Concretely, the author must provide details - a description even - of his methodology. For instance, he should explain what primary and secondary sources he uses and why; also he should also provide some insights into how his work fits within the research tradition of his chosen field of expertise and what the contribution of his article consists of as part of the scholarly investigations in the field.

Author Response

Would the journal editor, or the issue editor (Josh Thurow) please give me direction in this regard? I would be glad to provide a description of my methodology, and find the reader's recommendation that I do so to be of value. However, I am a little bit unsure about how to proceed give that 1) this is not typical in leading journals in the field of systematic theology such as MT, IJST or SJT, and 2) I would need some sense of the amount of space to devote to the subject. To be clear – this is not a refusal, but rather a request for clarity about whether the editor wants me to lengthen the article by including such material, and if so, how much space they wish me to devote to the subject, given space constraints. Would it suffice, for instance, to write that this is an essay of confessional Christian theology, written in a broadly Barthian framework? I could cite John Webster’s “Theological Theology” in “Confessing God: Essays in Christian Dogmatics II, as a reference point.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article makes a compelling claim that the work of the Spirit is central to the atoning work of the triune God in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The article focuses in particular on the way that Jesus recapitulates life in the Spirit in Israel, and thereby brings to completion the goal of creation by bringing the gift of the Spirit to forgiven and sanctified humanity.

I am not sure that the New Testament sees the bestowal of the Spirit as the goal of creation. The Spirit instead seems to be preparatory for the last day, when those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved (Joel 2, Romans 10), and when God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15). It would be important for the author to give the warrant for making this claim.

The article assumes much greater continuity between what the New Testament calls "the Holy Spirit" with what the Hebrew Bible calls "the Spirit of the Lord" than I or other scholars would be willing to grant. My Jewish colleagues repeatedly tell me that they know of nothing in their Scripture or tradition like "the Holy Spirit" in the New Testament. The Gospel of John, for one, reflects this novelty, as it tends to see the presence of the Spirit as a new and unknown reality before the resurrection of Jesus (John 7). 

Nor is it clear how the recapitulation of Israel's Spirit-led leadership in Jesus is related to the assumption of Israel's sin and guilt, as the article claims. Israel is assumed to be sinful, especially apparently in its leadership by prophets, kings and priests, but why should this be the case? 

The article devotes a good amount of attention to the place where theologians have not been able to see the presence of the Spirit, namely in the death of Jesus. The author does not like Moltmann's discussion of a rupture between the Father and Son in the God-abandonment of Jesus on the cross, but the article does not take into account the role of the Spirit in raising the Son of God from the dead (Romans 1), as this seems to be the narrative opening for Moltmann's point. The author should take into account von Balthasar's interpretation of kenosis in which the Son gives up his power in surrender to the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus, and then gives up the Spirit on the cross, leaving him powerless as he confronts the sin of the world in his death. There seems to be good reasons for theologians not being able to see the work of the Spirit in the death of Jesus, especially if the Spirit is the power by which the Father raises the Son from the dead.

The author seeks to show the presence of the Spirit in the death of Jesus by ascribing to it the pouring out of wrath on sin, which is now represented in Jesus. However, it does not seem to be at all sufficient simply to ascribe the wrathful judgment of sin to the Spirit, for it is not at all clear how that judgment helps to transform the relationship of sinners to their Creator. The article tells us that the triune God takes sin up into the divine life to deal with it accordingly (321-325), but it is not clear how pouring out wrath on sin helps to accomplish this goal (305-307).

I would be supportive of publishing the article, with the clarification of these issues. It is a creative and interesting argument, and deserves theological consideration.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, and the time you took in reviewing this essay. Below, I respond point by point to your comments, some of which have led to adaptations in the essay, others of which I believe are valid points, but outside the scope of so narrow a project. My responses to the reviewer's comments (which are in parentheses) are in italics.

(I am not sure that the New Testament sees the bestowal of the Spirit as the goal of creation. The Spirit instead seems to be preparatory for the last day, when those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved (Joel 2, Romans 10), and when God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15). It would be important for the author to give the warrant for making this claim.)

Of course I can only briefly do this, but I have added several sources in footnote 17 toward this end.

(The article assumes much greater continuity between what the New Testament calls "the Holy Spirit" with what the Hebrew Bible calls "the Spirit of the Lord" than I or other scholars would be willing to grant. My Jewish colleagues repeatedly tell me that they know of nothing in their Scripture or tradition like "the Holy Spirit" in the New Testament. The Gospel of John, for one, reflects this novelty, as it tends to see the presence of the Spirit as a new and unknown reality before the resurrection of Jesus (John 7).)

I am definitely making this assumption of continuity, in line with a significant tradition within the Christian faith. To be sure, the point is a valid one—but one which I do not think impinges on the integrity of the chapter any more than the fact that those same Jewish colleagues would likely make the same point about the “atonement” in the New Testament being in their Scriptures or tradition. I hope that comes across as genuine and not pugnacious—it is simply more than I can tackle within an essay of this scope.

(Nor is it clear how the recapitulation of Israel's Spirit-led leadership in Jesus is related to the assumption of Israel's sin and guilt, as the article claims. Israel is assumed to be sinful, especially apparently in its leadership by prophets, kings and priests, but why should this be the case?)

I am working within the broad parameters of a significant line of thought within the Christian faith, as seen by biblical, systematic and historical theologians. The essay assumes Jesus’ recapitulatory work, as part of the theological resources within which or through which I can explore the role of the Spirit. It seems sufficient to rely on the sources I cite in footnotes 11-15, all of which support the idea that recapitulation entails taking up the guilt of Israel (and all humankind). In no way do I mean to suggest that Israel is more guilty than humankind generally.

(The article devotes a good amount of attention to the place where theologians have not been able to see the presence of the Spirit, namely in the death of Jesus. The author does not like Moltmann's discussion of a rupture between the Father and Son in the God-abandonment of Jesus on the cross, but the article does not take into account the role of the Spirit in raising the Son of God from the dead (Romans 1), as this seems to be the narrative opening for Moltmann's point. The author should take into account von Balthasar's interpretation of kenosis in which the Son gives up his power in surrender to the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus, and then gives up the Spirit on the cross, leaving him powerless as he confronts the sin of the world in his death. There seems to be good reasons for theologians not being able to see the work of the Spirit in the death of Jesus, especially if the Spirit is the power by which the Father raises the Son from the dead.)

I am not familiar with this portion of von Balthasar’s thought, but I have read and incorporated (and now bolstered) my interaction with von Balthasar’s Theo-Drama IV, esp. 320ff, which, I believe, nicely supports my thesis. See especially footnote 60, which is new.

(The author seeks to show the presence of the Spirit in the death of Jesus by ascribing to it the pouring out of wrath on sin, which is now represented in Jesus. However, it does not seem to be at all sufficient simply to ascribe the wrathful judgment of sin to the Spirit, for it is not at all clear how that judgment helps to transform the relationship of sinners to their Creator. The article tells us that the triune God takes sin up into the divine life to deal with it accordingly (321-325), but it is not clear how pouring out wrath on sin helps to accomplish this goal (305-307).)

A defense of this point somewhat exceeds the scope of this article. At root is a complex atonement, not reducible to one aspect such as judgment or forgiveness. I have sought to develop this line of thought in other writings, but the key is to understand humans not as isolated beings, but to understand our humanity in Christ, such that our sin really is dealt with in Christ’s representative work – a claim which has ontological, and not merely symbolic meaning. I have in mind here the kind of thing developed somewhat differently, but with much similarity, by Barth, Torrance, von Balthasar and Bonhoeffer. But I am not confident I can develop Christ’s representative work, and how that “helps to transform the relationship of sinners to their Creator,” within the confines of this article. I take that as a given, and explore the role of the Spirit within that view.