Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement

By E.A. Johnston


The correlation of divine and human emotion is the focus of The Cry of the Soul: How Our Emotions Reveal Our Deepest Questions About God. Its goal is commendable. Anticipating worship as the outcome, the authors wish to give their readers insight into emotions as well as the essence of Christ’s crucifixion.[1]

Dan B. Allender and Tremper Longman believe that their readers will be “awed by the spectacle of the contempt” that God “unleashes against His own Son.”[2] They assert that “God’s rage . . . nailed the Son of God to the cross.”[3] Describing the Father as a “contemptuous God” who “longs to shame His foe,”[4] they affirm:

God chose to violate His Son in our place. The Son stared into the mocking eyes of God; He heard the laughter of the Father’s derision and felt Him depart in disgust. . . . In a mysterious instant, the Father who loved the Son from all eternity turned from Him in hatred. The Son became odious to the Father.[5]

These are serious claims, that merit either validation or repudiation. If the statements are true, believers should accept them in spite of their horror. If the assertions are false, Christians should take care not to be “blown here and there by every wind of teaching” (Ephesians 4:14).[6] Determining the appropriate response calls for a fair appraisal of the biblical record and rests upon the identity of Jesus Christ.

Once evangelicals ascertain his identity—and once they understand what that identity entails—they will have a critical interpretive presupposition. Establishing preliminary premises affords a reasonable doctrinal boundary beyond which an exegete ought not go. Biblically grounded presuppositions are essential because reading Scripture with complete neutrality is neither possible nor desirable.[7] “Preunderstanding about the nature of the subject being investigated”[8] is a safeguard for the interpreter.

Allender and Longman claim that the “cross . . . compels us to ask God who He is.”[9] Surely Christians can find the answer. Toward that end, this study begins by inquiring into the mystery of God.


People often think of a mystery as a “whodunit” or an “impenetrable puzzle.”[10] Biblical mystery is different. Neither attainable through brute reason nor reserved for “highbrow prodigies,”[11] it is God-given, intelligible, and available to all.[12] Furthermore, as God’s self-revelation, it is a “comprehensive unity.”[13] It contains no contradictions.

So, while the Word does not “erase God’s transcendent mystery,”[14] and believers cannot know exhaustively,[15] sufficient knowledge is possible.[16] As Colossians 1:26 declares, God has revealed this once hidden mystery to his people. One aspect of that mystery and its implications are important to this discussion: God’s eternal purpose to unite God and man in Jesus.[17] Divine mystery unfolds in its deepest sense via the incarnation.[18] In Colossians 2:2-3, the Apostle Paul explains that the mystery is Jesus Christ.[19] Gordon Fee writes:

Everything that God has done for us human beings and our salvation has been done in Christ. And precisely because God was doing it in Christ, it would have been quite out of character for Paul to think of God and Christ in totally separate categories. Whatever else is true of Paul, his worldview is now utterly Christocentric.[20]

Paul’s thought runs deep. While his worldview is Christocentric, his Christology is richly trinitarian. Believers have access to God through Christ by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). First Corinthians 2:7-10 traces the long-hidden mystery of God’s wisdom from before creation to the crucifixion and then on to the eternal reward of believers. God the Father now reveals his wisdom through his Son by his Spirit.[21] Such triune unity of action “mirrors the fundamental union of their persons”[22] and highlights the unified work of the Trinity. In no way being a “doctrine of three Gods,” Christian trinitarianism upholds monotheism and provides a profound glimpse into the “inner unity of his eternal being.”[23]


Because Christ’s incarnation is “grounded in, derived from, and continuously upheld . . . within the Holy Trinity,” to speak properly of Jesus Christ is to speak in trinitarian terms.[24] Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). Christ is the “One in whom God Himself is personally present.”[25] It is in the Lord that “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). This expression is quite forceful.[26] In volume one of his Selected Shorter Writings, B. B. Warfield argues:

It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. . . . The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. . . . There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ.[27]

God’s fullness is the fullness of the Trinity. Sent by the Father (John 8:29) and conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18), Jesus’ incarnation is a trinitarian act, which implies the need to understand Jesus relative to the Trinity. Loving, generous, and reciprocal intimacy epitomizes the Triune God.[28]

Scripture highlights the distinctiveness yet oneness of Father, Son, and Spirit. Because they are distinct, the Father speaks, the Son is baptized, and the Holy Spirit descends as a dove (Matthew 3:16-17). The Son speaks to the Father (John 12:27), and the Father responds to his Son (John 12:28). Nevertheless, Jesus makes it clear that he and his Father are one (John 10:30). Again, Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct yet inseparable. This is true both eternally and in “time and space.”[29]

While Jesus insisted that the Father had sent him, he balanced this “with a claim of equality with the Father.”[30] Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was; Peter responded, “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16-17). Yet, one might not necessarily consider a son equal to his father.[31] Briefly looking at Old Testament prophecies will further establish the Father and Son’s equality.


Hebrew scholar Michael L. Brown pulls divergent threads of messianic prophecy together. Three of them are of particular importance here. Daniel’s prediction of the building of the Second Temple (9:24-26) is the first. Prior to this temple’s destruction, “the Anointed One will be put to death” (Daniel 9:26). Referencing Christ’s passion, this death is the “bringing of everlasting atonement— the final dealing with sin.”[32] Second, Haggai 2:9 foretells that the glory of the Second Temple will exceed that of Solomon’s Temple. Brown comments: “When God says he’ll fill the temple with glory, this can only apply to his presence.”[33] Malachi 3:1 is the third. In it, he predicts that the Lord will come to that temple. Malachi chose a term that “always refers to God himself: the Lord— he will come to that temple.”[34] Thus the Anointed One, whose presence fills the temple with divine glory and who provides atonement, is God himself, the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

John S. Feinberg summarizes additional prophecies. Isaiah 9:6-7 envisions the coming Messiah; it is he who is the mighty God. Micah 5:2 not only predicts the birthplace of Christ, it speaks of this child as eternal. Jeremiah 23:5-6 refers to the Messiah as a coming king who will rule Israel; this king is “Yahweh our righteousness.”[35] The Messiah is equal with God. He is God the Son. In the New Testament, the Apostle John introduces this Son as the Logos.


Philosophical speculation over the term logos began long before John wrote his Gospel. His contemporaries would likely have seen notions of reason, science, speech, message, or wisdom in its use.[36] Nonetheless, D. A. Carson sees John’s application of logos clearly grounded in the Old Testament.

Considering how frequently John quotes or alludes to the Old Testament, that is the place to begin. There, ‘the word’ (Heb. dābār) of God is connected with God’s powerful activity in creation . . . revelation . . . and deliverance. . . . If the LORD is said to speak to the prophet Isaiah . . . elsewhere we read that ‘the word of the LORD came to Isaiah.’. . . It was by ‘the word of the LORD’ that the heavens were made. . . . God simply speaks, and his . . . word creates.[37]

Jesus Christ is “no mere man.”[38] What he does and what he says “are the deeds and words of God.”[39] On this point, Craig A. Keener prefers the New English Bible’s translation of John 1:1c. “What God was, the Word was.”[40] Again, that God the Son is equal with the Father becomes apparent. Notwithstanding, one could ask: Since Jesus Christ has two natures, how would his human nature affect the eternal relationship between Father and Son? Resolution of one of the Christological controversies holds the answer.


Determining all that the incarnation implied was not easy for the early church. Amid intense debate and political intrigue, the Chalcedonian Settlement detailed the church’s final determination. Definitive in its claims, it maintains equally the Lord’s unity and duality.[41] In his work, Early Christian Doctrines, J. N. D. Kelly explains:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son. . . . perfect in Godhead and . . . perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man . . . consubstantial with the Father in the Godhead, and . . . consubstantial with us in the manhood, like us in all things except sin. . . . The same Christ, Son, Lord . . . made know in two natures without confusion, without division, without separation.[42]

Of intrinsic importance, the fact that Jesus has two natures safeguards multiple doctrinal concerns. These include the “Trinity . . . divinity, atonement and lordship of Christ.”[43] Basic to evangelical belief, these tenets must be upheld in order to retain biblical faith. Consequently, whatever interpretive conclusion one reaches must take into account at least two things.

Jesus’ two natures in one person is the first. Interpreters should keep in mind that his person is not divisible. Although the two natures are not confused, one cannot separate the divinity from the manhood of the Lord. To be doctrinally sound, one needs to understand that Christ’s words and actions are the words and actions of God. Not only are his natures indivisible, his message and acts are, too. When interpreting, believers need to focus need to focus on the “unity of person and work, for Messiah’s deeds are a commentary on his person.”[44]

Secondly, evangelical faith is trinitarian faith. Jesus’ incarnation—founded in trinitarian action on behalf on humanity—is an exegetical boundary. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God and equally possess all of the divine attributes.[45] As a consequent, all of the perfections of the Godhead are present in Jesus Christ the Lord. No change occurred in the “Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose,” as a result of the incarnation.[46] Indeed, the “hypostatic union is grounded in, derived from, and continuously upheld . . . within the Holy Trinity.”[47]


Having labored the point to clearly establish that Jesus Christ is God, there is but one step left to resolve. Keeping in mind that what is asserted of one divine person reflects upon the others, evangelical exegetes must establish what may be predicated of God. With this in mind, returning to the original dilemma of Allender and Longman’s claims brings up some critical concerns. The first is their description of interaction within the Trinity.

Allegations that the Father turned from his Son “in hatred”[48] stand in stark contrast to the New Testament depictions of intratrinitarian relationship. Father, Son, and Spirit enjoy eternal “personal communion” and always give “themselves in responsive love to one another.”[49] In fact, it was in the incarnation that the “Trinity [and God’s love] became most profoundly expressed.”[50] Enmity between the members of the Trinity is nonexistent; there is “only love between the persons,”[51] This love of God is a “necessary attribute,” and necessary attributes are “a way of looking at God’s complete nature.”[52] Louis Berkhof correlates God’s freedom and his love and explains that God “necessarily loves Himself.”[53] Karl Barth, also speaking on God’s love and his freedom, insists: “God is free. Because this is the case . . . the freedom of God . . . consists and fulfills itself in His Son . . . In Him God has loved Himself from all eternity” (emphasis added).[54]

Therefore, if there were any hostility between Father and Son it would violate the very heart of the Trinity. It is erroneous to hold that the crucifixion was “an action done by one of the persons of the Trinity . . . acting against the others.”[55] No enmity between the divine persons occurred at the cross. To believe otherwise is contrary to the truth that “salvation is the work of the triune God” working inseparably with “unity of purpose.”[56]

Jesus Christ exemplified the very pinnacle of God’s triune, self-giving love as he bore the sin of the world. Allender and Longman error on what this bearing of sin means. Relying upon allusions to 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Habakkuk 1:13, the authors state their case. God “the Son became sin,” which resulted in the “breaking of divine fellowship due to the ugliness of sin.”[57] Their theory rests upon the belief that the “Father cannot look on sin without hatred.”[58] Assuming that the Son became literal sin, they conclude the Father cannot look upon his own Son. They arrive at these conclusions by taking Psalms, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Habakkuk 1:13 as unambiguously literal. They write of God’s rage, contempt, mockery, and derision toward sinners and toward his own Son.[59]

When interpreting Scripture, having the presupposition that Jesus Christ is God in eternity and God on the cross should prevent ascribing those emotions to the Father toward his Son. God is not—nor could God ever be—literal sin or a sinner. A more nuanced comprehension of guilt, imputation, and sin bearing would not only prove their assertions false, it would provide another indispensable presupposition.


Perhaps the most common understanding of guilt is that of doing something wrong, the emotional response that follows, and the associated moral contamination. Yet, archaic as well as legal dictionaries establish the most significant aspect of guilt related to the doctrine of atonement. Guilt is exposure or liability to punishment.[60]

Sin results in “pollution and guilt. The former is the spiritual and moral pollution with which the human soul is tainted. Guilt is obligation to punishment.”[61] Christ assumes guilt—in other words, the obligation to punishment—for the Church. This is “separable . . . by the mercy of God” from “those whose sins are pardoned.”[62] In so doing, Jesus does not assume sin’s pollution.

Put differently, sin’s moral pollution is a person’s moral unworthiness, which “is not transferrable.”[63] The other aspect is “liability to punishment [and] may be transferred.”[64] This transferrable aspect of sin or guilt—its punishment—is death. Reassigning this penalty to another is imputation, which is “setting to one’s credit” or “laying to one’s charge.”[65] Properly understood, imputation speaks “exclusively” of sin’s “legal forfeitures and liabilities.”[66] Transferal of “moral qualities . . . is impossible in the nature of things.”[67]

Finding the belief that “that the moral turpitude of these sins was transferred to” Christ offensive, Charles Hodge wrote that he would have “no communion with the man who taught it.”[68] “Imputation is not transfusion,” and it “is a great mistake” to think Christ was defiled by it.[69] It was the penalty of sin, and only that penalty, which Christ bore for the Church. He did not bear sin’s moral stain. “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death” (Colossians 1:22). Numbers 14:34 demonstrates the correlation between sin and its punishment. James Denney explains:

“After the number of the days in which ye spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year, shall ye bear your iniquities” — the meaning clearly is, bear the consequences of them. . . In Leviticus 5:17, “If any one sin, and do any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done . . . [he] shall bear his iniquity” — the meaning is as clearly, he shall underlie the consequences attached by the law to his act. . . . In Exodus 28:43 . . . “that they bear not iniquity and die:” to die and to bear iniquity are the same thing.[70]

Bearing guilt is synonymous with bearing sin. Jesus endured the punishment and died the death that mankind deserves. That is all that it means in both 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13.[71] Deuteronomy 21:23 and Galatians 3:13 speak of the “punishment or result of sin.” Moses was “simply prophesying the manner of [Jesus’] death.”[72] Herein lies the nuance: the terms sin and curse can reference either “an evil action itself or the punishment of this action, death. This distinction is, of course, crucial.”

With the presuppositions that Jesus is God and that God cannot be literal sin, Christians must look for a biblical answer when reading 2 Corinthians 5:21. Understanding the subtleties of language is key to developing a coherent interpretation. Knowing that guilt has two aspects provides the needed presupposition when analyzing texts that say that Jesus bore sin or became sin. Literalistic readings are disallowed. Transference of moral qualities is impossible. Transference of penalty is not.


“Who are you, Lord?” (Acts 9:5) remains a relevant inquiry today. Jesus is the “very manifestation . . . [and] the “supreme revelation” of the Father.[73] He is “Yahweh in action”[74] and “ontologically God.”[75] God is unequivocally[76] and intrinsically holy.[77] Scripture’s witness to this is clear and irrefutable.[78] Jesus was not morally marred at the cross. In his deepest pain, he “spread the radiance of absolute personal holiness.”[79] These facts are vital presuppositions for evangelical Christians.

Asking what is at stake if a claim were true is needful.[80] If the claims that the Father hated his own Son and that Jesus “became odious to the Father”[81] were true, the Trinity would be void of eternal unity. Without that unity there would be no Trinity. Christianity would be bereaved of its eternally triune God. Yet, the claims are not true. Thomas Torrance expressed it well:

The work of Christ on the cross . . . had its deepest significance in that it rested eternally in the oneness of the Father and the Son—and so, as the writer of Hebrews expressed it, it was through the eternal Spirit that Christ offered himself without spot to the Father. The act of atonement was a trinitarian act, historical to be sure, but it rested ultimately on relations within the holy Trinity.[82]


[1]Dan B. Allender and Tremper Longman III, The Cry of the Soul: How Our Emotions Reveal Our Deepest Questions About God, Kindle edition (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994), p. 18.

[2]Ibid., p. 177.

[3]Ibid., p. 12.

[4]Ibid., pp. 177-178.

[5]Ibid., p. 185.

[6]Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture is from the New International Version (Zondervan Publishing Company, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984).

[7]Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part Three (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), Vol. 4, p. 388.


[9]Allender and Longman, p. 159.

[10]David E. Garland, Colossians and Philemon, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), p. 125.

[11]Ibid., p. 129.

[12]Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part Two (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), Vol. 3, pp. 11, 19.

[13]Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part One (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), Vol. 2, p. 10.


[15]D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), p. 103.

[16]Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge, Anniversary Edition. Landmarks in Christian Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), p. 465.

[17]Thomas F. Torrance, Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ, ed. Robert T. Walker (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), p. 164.

[18]Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2007), p. 185.

[19]Although this passage speaks of the “full riches of complete understanding,” Paul is not speaking of exhaustive knowledge. Instead, his focus is on the “full assurance that understanding brings.” The apostle is also showing that Jesus is the only source of true spiritual knowledge. Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), pp. 125, 167.

[20]Fee, p. 8.

[21]William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical, Kindle edition (n.p.: Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2014), Vol. 1, location 2591.

[22]Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), p. 284.

[23]Thomas F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, rev. ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1992), pp. 106-107.

[24]Ibid., p. 65.

[25]Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1934), p. 353.

[26]Benjamin B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, ed. John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1970), Vol. 1, p. 80.

[27]Ibid., pp. 80-81.

[28]Royce Gordon Gruenler, The Trinity in the Gospel of John: A Thematic Commentary On the Fourth Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), p. 23.

           [29]Michael J. Ovey, “Inseparable Operation The Trinity Working Together” (lecture, Oak Hill Theological College, London, England, 2002), Mp3 Audio file, <> (accessed April, 21 2012).

[30]Gruenler, p. 23.

[31]Isaac Watts, Discourses, Essays, and Tracts On Various Subjects (London, England: T. and T. Longman at the ship, and J. Buckland at the Buck, 1753), Vol. 6, p. 670, < output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PR1> (accessed June 11, 2016).

[32]Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks On the Identity of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), locations 3603-3605.

[33]Ibid., locations 3610-3611.

[34]Ibid., locations 3612-3613.

[35]John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology, Kindle edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), p. 423.

[36]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 115.


[38]C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes On the Greek Text, 2nd edition (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1978), p.155.

[39]Ibid., p. 156.

[40]Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Reprint edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), Vol. 1: pp. 364, 366-374.

[41]J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised edition (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2003), p. 341.

[42]Ibid., pp. 339-340.

[43]Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 3, p. 110.

[44]Ibid., p. 135.

[45]Christ did not lose his divine perfections in his incarnation. He chose “not to use selfishly what he already had” and “set aside his ‘advantageous’ position for the sake of others.” Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary On the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 103-104.

[46]Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Combined edition with new preface (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), p. 59.

[47]Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, p. 65.

[48]Allender and Longman, p. 185.

[49]Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Croall Lectures, 1942-1943 (London, England: Nisbet & Co. Ltd., 1943), p. 192.

[50]Thomas C. Oden, Systematic Theology, The Word of Life (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987), Vol. 2, p. 176.

[51]John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), p. 272.

[52]Ibid., p. 486.

[53]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 78.

[54]Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God, First paperback edition, trans. G W. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance, vol. 2, Volume 2, Part 1 (New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2004), Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 321.

[55]Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions, pp. 129, 130.


[57]Allender and Longman, p. 209.

[58]Ibid. This student does not agree with the book’s literalism. However, determining whether God actually hates or has these kinds of emotive outbursts towards sinners is not the point here. Applying these emotions from the Father directly to the Son is the issue.

[59]Ibid., pp. 12, 71, 177, 185, 209.

[60]A Dictionary of the English Language: A Digital Edition of the 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson, < 950> (accessed October 25, 2014); Webster’s Dictionary, Online ed., <http://www.webster-dic> (accessed October 20, 2014).

[61]Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997), Vol. 1. p. 594.

[62]Ibid., p. 595.

[63]H. A. G. Blocher, “Sin” in T. Desmond Alexander et al., eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 787.


[65]B. B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, Kindle edition (Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), locations 4351-4352.

[66]Thomas Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement, 4th edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 189.

[67]Ibid., p. 445.

[68]Charles Hodge, Theological Essays (New York, NY: Wiley and Putnam, 1846), p. 137, <> (accessed September 28, 2014).

[69]John Brine, “The Doctrines of the Imputation of Sin to Christ and the Imputation of His Righteousness to His People: Clearly Stated, Explained, and Improved,” The Complete Works of John Brine, <> (accessed September 28, 2014).

[70]James Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament, 3rd edition (London, England: Hodder and Stroughton, 1903), pp. 97-98.

[71]Ibid., pp. 149, 160-161.

[72]Peter W. Martens, “Anyone Hung On a Tree Is under God’s Curse,” Ex Auditu-An International Journal of Theological Interpretation of Scripture 26 (May, 9, 2011): 69-90. s_Curse_Deut_21_23_Jesus_Crucifixion_and_Interreligious_Exegetical_Debate_in_Late_Antiquity_
Ex_Auditu_26_2010_69-90 (accessed February 14, 2014).

[73]Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp. 262, 439.

[74]Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 3, p. 203.

[75]Feinberg, p. 457.

[76]Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: a Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), p. 127.

[77]Feinberg, p. 310.

[78]G. C. Berkouwer, Study in Dogmatics: The Person of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), p. 253.

[79]Ibid., p. 250.

[80]Graham A. Cole, New Studies in Biblical Theology, vol. 30, The God Who Became Human: a Biblical Theology of Incarnation (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, InterVarsity Press, 2013), 159.

[81]Allender and Longman, p. 185. Synonyms for the term odious highlight the egregious nature of Allender and Longman’s theory. These include: repulsive, repugnant, disgusting, offensive, vile, foul, abhorrent, loathsome, nauseating, sickening, and detestable. Oxford Dictionaries, s.v. “odious,” <> (accessed 6/20/2016).

[82]Torrance, Incarnation, pp. 176-177.

article categories

Share this post

Article Categories


Become a WIA volunteer and enjoy the many benefits that come with it! Check out our current needs on the volunteer page.


Help us in our mission to educate, equip, and encourage women in Christian apologetics.

Copyright © Women in Apologetics. All rights reserved.

Scroll to Top