Paul, Luther, and the Cross: In Dialog with Karl Donfried

Abstract

In response to the articles appearing in Dialog 46:1 (Spring 2007), David Brondos defends his position that in Paul's thought Christ's death did not "effect" human salvation, over against Karl Donfried's critique of that position. While Brondos and Donfried agree that Luther got the essence of Paul's gospel right and that Paul did not understand Jesus' death in terms of satisfaction or penal substitution, Brondos argues that the idea of "inclusive substitution" defended by Donfried and characteristic of the "new perspective on Paul" is foreign to the thought of both Paul and Luther.

Paul and the Revisionists: Did Luther Really Get it All Wrong?

“….." 33 In Brondos' great desire to challenge, correctly in my view, the interpretation of atonement as satisfaction in a rigid and legalistic manner, he throws out the baby with the bath water. Although they are cited in a footnote, 34 there is no sustained reflection on the work of either Tübingen Old Testament scholar Hartmut Gese 35 or his New Testament colleague Otfried Hofius and their view that the atonement should be understood as an "inclusive substitution." Hofius is quite clear that the death of Christ is not about satisfaction.…”