The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

[The Biblicist]

Le 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Le 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat on the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet smell to the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 5:18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and knew it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he has done in trespassing therein.

Le 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he has done: and the sin which he has done shall be forgiven him.

In each case the sin was committed first. Second, atonement followed for that sin. Third, the future tense "shall be" follows in regard to forgiveness.

The sacrificial system is set up to picture the atonement of Christ for sin. Every aspect had to be exact to the pattern given to Moses on the Mount, and then later to David. This included the brass altar and fire, both of which are common Biblical symbols for the wrath of God demonstrating that Christ represented by the lamb without spot or blemish must suffer the wrath of God against sin in the place of the sinner. The law required a penalty and that penalty equals God's wrath.

Moreover, on the day of atonement the High Priest would lay his hands upon the head of the sacrifice symbolizing the transfer of sins from the people to the sacrifice.

On judgement day the standard is to judge and reward them "according to their works" which demands exact equivilancy for their sin debts. In response, this required more than a human substitute but the God/man who can supply an infinite worth and infinite suffering (eternal) due to his Deity in order to redeem more than one person but all the elect.

Isaiah 53 spells out penal substitutionary atonement better than any passage in scripture.

Of course all of this was done within a covenant context. The Old Covenant sacrificial system symbolized the everlasting covenant between the Persons of the Godhead in behalf of the elect.

In Romans 8:28-37 no fallen creature has any part of the covenant obligations of this everlasting covenant but they are the objects, the recipients, not the participants "who....them he also."

In Ephesians 1:4-14 no fallen creature has nay part of the covenant obligations of redemption but they are the objects, the recipients, not the participants.

The idea of covenant participation of fallen sinners is the Old Covenant works covenant which cannot justify anyone.

Finally, the symbolism of the sacrifice demands that righteous demands of the law as well as the penal demands must be satisfied by Christ as "the lamb without spot or blemish" who died "for" our sins or in the place of the sinner under the wrath of God. - Thus penal substitutionary satisfaction of God's law.

 

[The Biblicist]

Think of this! If there were no law there would be no sin and thus no cross. They are inseparably connected with one another. They stand and fall together! Paul explicitly states that the law reveals the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:21). When Christ was asked how one could inherit eternal life he pointed to the law and said "do this and thou shalt live" thus confirming it as God's standard of righteousness in addition to what reveals the knowledge of sin, as sin is "coming short" of that righteous standard. James said to fail in one point was to fail altogether, and thus the righteousness of the law is not to fail at any point.

Jesus told his disciples that righteousness to enter heaven must "exceed" that of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:20) and then proceeded to properly define the law so that law reflected the proper standard of righteousness equal to God's own (Mt. 5:48).

Therefore, the proper sacrifice must not merely suffer the JUST wrath of the law (aka wrath of God) signified by death in fire on a brass altar, but must be "without spot or blemish" in order to satisfy both the righteous standard and penalty of the Law. To claim the children of God were never subject to the wrath of God is anti-biblical as Paul explicitly states "we were CHILDREN OF WRATH EVEN AS OTHERS" (Eph. 2:2-3).

If God does not vindicate the penal consequences of violating His law and/or fails to demand the righteous standard of the law he ceases to have any right to be recognized as God. The cross is necessary to vindicate God to be God as sin is rebellion against Him as King over creation. Sin says you have no right to be God, and thus no right to rule over me. Sin declares self-rule and the most expressive form of self-rule is self-determinate law making. God must vindicate His law to vindicate Himself as final law maker. His wrath against sin declares Him so, and His standard of righteousness declares him so. This defines justification as satisfaction of both the penal and righteous demands of His law in the person of Christ. This is the presentation of Christ in the gospel which is the sole object of faith that obtains righteousness for his people.

 

[The Biblicist]

Isa. 53: 4 ¶ Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Note it is God that smites him, that bruised him, that wounded him, that afflicted him, that cut him off and it was God that made "his soul an offering for sin."

He was wounded "for our" transgressions "for our" iniquities".

Note that God had to be "SATISFIED" and his satisfaction included both the Son as a "righteous servant" and sin bearer or bearing "their iniquities" (v. 11).

The issue here is "transgression" of the Law of God and its just penalty. Only one born under the Law and "righteous" in the sight of the law or a lamb "without spot or blemish" could pay for "our" transgressions. His righteousness was not "of the Law" but of His divine nature which the Law was designed to declare. The law declared him righteous, thus making him a fit substitute for sinners. His works did not attain righteousness but declared His righteousness as he challenged his audiences if they believed not his words then look at his works and challenged them to find sin in him.

His sufferings paid the equivalent of all the sins of the elect as his sufferings had to be infinite in value to do that. Jesus said of us that after we have done all that we are commanded to do we are still "unprofitable" servants. One profitable servant is worth more than any amount of unprofitable servants. The deity of Christ gives infinite value to the sacrifice of Christ, where his sinless humanity qualifies him to be a substitute.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is quite true that the terms "substitutionary" and "penal" are not biblical terms but have originated from later times, but just like the term "trinity" they are correct terms to describe Biblical truth. To assume the doctrine is post-Biblical simply because the terminology is post-biblical does not work with the term "trinity" any more than it does with "substitutionary" and "penal."

 

[The Biblicist]

Nu 16:46 And Moses said to Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly to the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun.

Sin, violation of God's law occurs first. The consequence is God's wrath. The sacrifice on the altar satisfies God's wrath against his people by turning that wrath symbolically upon a sinless substitute. The brass altar, the fire all represent God's wrath against sin taken out upon a sinless substitute.

So does God pour out His wrath upon an innocent person? YES, since according to the everlasting covenant the Second Person voluntarily obligated himself to be the LEGAL object of God's wrath in the LEGAL position of His covenant people. That commitment demonstrates his great love for his people.

 

[The Biblicist]

Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delays his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looks not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed
and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

This parable illustrates accountability according to the measure of guilt and is similar to other second coming literal statements that defines judgement "according to their works." This is just penal consequences. "Stripes" cannot be regarded than anything less than penal consequences. "many" versus "few" demands a just reward "according to their works."

 

[The Biblicist]

PENAL SUBSTITUTION IS NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC PENANCE!

Roman Catholic Penance has to do with the sinner paying for his own sins with equivilent sufferings which ultimately is worked out in Catholic theology as purgatory. This is a works salvation view of atonement.

Penal substitution has to do with the Son of God satisfying the justice of God as defined by God's Law IN THE PLACE of His people. This is a grace salvation view of atonement that actually satisfies God's wrath and righteous demands.

 

[The Biblicist]

In the law covenant God established the courtroom scenario within the nation of Israel. The words "law" "justify" and "justification" and "condemn" and "transgression" are all forensic terms in their biblical context. God portays himself as the ultimate judge in a courtroom scenario where His law is the standard of condemnation or justification (Rom. 2:6-11) as Paul actually uses the term "justify" within that courtroom setting based upon "doing" rather than just knowing the Law.

The reason the child of God does not enter into judgement is because his condemnation has been paid in full already by the substitutionary Lamb of God (Jn. 5:24) as the righteousness of the sinless lamb has been imputed to the sinner and Christ has been made sin having fully satisifed the penalty for sin on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). Just before the Lord gave up his spirit, he pronounced the payment "paid in full". Isaiah claims that Christ suffered under the hand of God until God was "satisfied" meaning his law had been satisfied. That "satisfaction" is what Christ referred to when he said "paid in full."

 

[Yeshua1]

PENAL SUBSTITUTION IS NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC PENANCE!

Roman Catholic Penance has to do with the sinner paying for his own sins with equivilent sufferings which ultimately is worked out in Catholic theology as purgatory. This is a works salvation view of atonement.

Penal substitution has to do with the Son of God satisfying the justice of God as defined by God's Law IN THE PLACE of His people. This is a grace salvation view of atonement that actually satisfies God's wrath and righteous demands.

God has to have a sin bearer in order to have His wraith on sin appeased, and it will be either Jesus or us!

 

[Yeshua1]

Le 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Le 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat on the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet smell to the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 5:18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and knew it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

Le 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he has done in trespassing therein.

Le 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he has done: and the sin which he has done shall be forgiven him.

In each case the sin was committed first. Second, atonement followed for that sin. Third, the future tense "shall be" follows in regard to forgiveness.

The sacrificial system is set up to picture the atonement of Christ for sin. Every aspect had to be exact to the pattern given to Moses on the Mount, and then later to David. This included the brass altar and fire, both of which are common Biblical symbols for the wrath of God demonstrating that Christ represented by the lamb without spot or blemish must suffer the wrath of God against sin in the place of the sinner. The law required a penalty and that penalty equals God's wrath.

Moreover, on the day of atonement the High Priest would lay his hands upon the head of the sacrifice symbolizing the transfer of sins from the people to the sacrifice.

On judgement day the standard is to judge and reward them "according to their works" which demands exact equivilancy for their sin debts. In response, this required more than a human substitute but the God/man who can supply an infinite worth and infinite suffering (eternal) due to his Deity in order to redeem more than one person but all the elect.

Isaiah 53 spells out penal substitutionary atonement better than any passage in scripture.

Of course all of this was done within a covenant context. The Old Covenant sacrificial system symbolized the everlasting covenant between the Persons of the Godhead in behalf of the elect.

In Romans 8:28-37 no fallen creature has any part of the covenant obligations of this everlasting covenant but they are the objects, the recipients, not the participants "who....them he also."

In Ephesians 1:4-14 no fallen creature has nay part of the covenant obligations of redemption but they are the objects, the recipients, not the participants.

The idea of covenant participation of fallen sinners is the Old Covenant works covenant which cannot justify anyone.

Finally, the symbolism of the sacrifice demands that righteous demands of the law as well as the penal demands must be satisfied by Christ as "the lamb without spot or blemish" who died "for" our sins or in the place of the sinner under the wrath of God. - Thus penal substitutionary satisfaction of God's law.

Jesu wa/is t spotlessLamb of God, whoe death was cceptable as my sin bearer as heknew no sin, no fault foundi n Him...

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesu wa/is t spotlessLamb of God, whoe death was cceptable as my sin bearer as heknew no sin, no fault foundi n Him...

The deal is that there must be to us an imputed rightiousness of Jesu to have God accept us as aved now, and not theole Covenant obedience of Jesus model here!
Think Calvin , for all of his faults, got this MUCH beter than Wright and his ilk!

 

[JonC]

This is an interesting topic. Yesterday I purchased Gustaf Aulén’s book in the kindle format (set me back 99 cents). I’m familiar with the historical perspective (the Christus Victor Theory), but I never really considered it in depth (as I have PST), so I guess I’ve held PST as my default. I have, however, objected to a few issues in how some define PST. Looking at Aulén’s book, and at the writings of others, I see that I am not alone. So at the start, I did not come to question a few aspects of PST as some hold the doctrine because I encountered the writings of others who held to the “classic theory”, nor did I come to question those ideas because of the beliefs of the Early Church. I questioned some ideas because they did not seem to fit in Scripture. And then I started looking at commentators to see if others held the same concerns.

As I read the introduction to this book (by Dindinger) I can’t help but see a truth that is dismissed by so many here.

He summarizes the gospel message as :“All have fallen and are separated from God by an insurmountable wall of sin (Rom 3:23, Isa 59:1-2, Hab 1:13). However, even though God must judge sin, He loves us and sent His Son to Earth to redeem us (Rom 6:23, John 3:16). While on Earth, Jesus lived a perfect life and then died on the cross for us (Isa 53: 4-6). He tore down that wall of separation and saved us from our sin. It is finished (John 19:30)”.

And then he notes that we “all agree on the facts, but not everyone throughout history has agreed on how exactly redemption was accomplished”.

In his rendering of the gospel message he makes a point that it is absent of what the early Church focused on in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that is the resurrection. Looking at evangelistic tracts on another thread I can’t help but notice the same thing. Why did Paul, and the Early Church, point to the resurrection as the focus of the “cross” and why is it absent in our version of the gospel? Why does PST as expressed by so many identical to Aquinas’ position (the RCC view) but with minor adjustments to the nature of the price paid? Why the "Latin View"?

What I have found here, and elsewhere, is that The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as articulated and formulated by John Calvin is considered absolute truth, even in the theoretical – the reasoning through things to make doctrines based on Scripture. People seem to hold PST, as they believe it to be, as infallible and unquestionable truth.

If anyone questions the nature of the reasoning, or the context of the application of Scripture, they are merely met with accusation, attack, and Scripture that both sides affirm. Discussion cannot be had.

So, interesting topic, but it always proves taboo.

For my part, I believe that both the Reformed position and the Historical position has things to offer. I hold to PST, but do have concerns over how some view the doctrine.

 

[HankD]

Didn't we run this one into the ground not to long ago?

HankD

 

[JonC]

Yes. Several times. It never goes anywhere.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In his rendering of the gospel message he makes a point that it is absent of what the early Church focused on in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that is the resurrection. Looking at evangelistic tracts on another thread I can’t help but notice the same thing. Why did Paul, and the Early Church, point to the resurrection as the focus of the “cross” and why is it absent in our version of the gospel?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'it' here. Neither the cross nor the resurrection is absent at my church, I'm delighted to tell you. We have a series on our Lord's words from the cross starting in a couple of weeks and running through until Easter. Nor are the cross and PSA absent from the NT letters. From Romans 1:18 through to 3:31, which is Paul's major Gospel presentation, there is no mention (unless I missed it) of the resurrection. It's about sin and PSA. The resurrection is of course absolutely vital because it is the proof that God was indeed propitiated by the Lord Jesus' substitutionary death, because He is the firstfruits from the dead. That appears from Rom. 4 onwards as one would expect.

Why does PST as expressed by so many identical to Aquinas’ position (the RCC view) but with minor adjustments to the nature of the price paid? Why the "Latin View"?

With respect to Aquinas, perhaps it has something to do with blind hogs and acorns.

 

[JonC]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'it' here. Neither the cross nor the resurrection is absent at my church, I'm delighted to tell you. We have a series on our Lord's words from the cross starting in a couple of weeks and running through until Easter. Nor are the cross and PSA absent from the NT letters. From Romans 1:18 through to 3:31, which is Paul's major Gospel presentation, there is no mention (unless I missed it) of the resurrection. It's about sin and PSA. The resurrection is of course absolutely vital because it is the proof that God was indeed propitiated by the Lord Jesus' substitutionary death, because He is the firstfruits from the dead. That appears from Rom. 4 onwards as one would expect.

With respect to Aquinas, perhaps it has something to do with blind hogs and acorns.

By "it" I meant the resurrection. I am not implying that your church ignores the resurrection in the gospel message, but I have noticed it absent in so many of the tracts that explain the gospel using strictly a PST method. And, of course, I still maintain that Jesus' death was substitutionary as he died as our representative, taking the consequences of sin upon himself. He, who had no sin, was made "sin" or a "sin offering" for us.

Regarding Aquinas, you may be right. But it is odd that penal substitution was not articulated as the Penal Substitution Theory we know it to be until Calvin and the Reformation (and as a correction to the RCC doctrine based on Aquinas' theory). I don't think the similarities can be denied (at lest not maintaining a sincere tone) and as Penal Substitution Theory was either invented or drawn from Scripture to correct the Aquinas' theory (specifically by Calvin, not Luther). I think it warrants the consideration that it may contain extra-biblical influences.

In other words, I am not denouncing substitution but questioning some aspects as it is held by many today.

 

[JonC]

“Probably the best known and best loved hymn on the passion in modern times is “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” a hymn that sets forth nothing but the moral view. Every line of it emphasizes the effect on the observer of surveying the wondrous cross. It strikes home with force. What it says is both true and important. It is when it is claimed that this is all that the atonement means that we must reject it.” (Leon Morris on the Theories of Atonement)

In terms of the Penal Substitution Theory, Morris recognizes the criticisms as identifying the transfer of sin from one person to another (some forms of penalty, such as a fine, can be justly transferable; others, such as imprisonment or capital punishment, cannot). But at the same time, he recognizes these criticisms as valid due to how the theory is stated. Its essential basis is biblical.

We ran into this on another thread (I simply chose not to address the presupposition in the context). I said that it does not seem to be biblical forgiveness if God has to receive full payment of a debt before the debt can be forgiven. The reply was that I did not understand the sacrificial system. Under Levitical law men sinned, offered an atoning sacrifice, and God forgave. Case closed. The problem is the explanation assumes the atoning sacrifice an equal and exact payment of the sin rather than an act of repentance (obedience through sacrifice). My point is that there are enough assumptions to go around.

To me, there are serious problems with the way some have stated Penal Substitution. I absolutely agree that Jesus died as our substitute, our iniquities were laid upon him, and that it was God's will to "crush him" But like Morris, I also believe that all the main theories contribute to the truth but all have weaknesses as well. The Atonement itself exceeds our theories and it is when one theory is elevated as absolute and all-encompassing that it must be rejected.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I absolutely agree that Jesus died as our substitute, our iniquities were laid upon him, and that it was God's will to "crush him" But

Every time I think we have sorted this question out between us, you manage to come up with a 'But' that throws the whole thing into doubt again.

There is no doubt that the cross shows the love of God to guilty sinners; there is no doubt that on the cross, Christ is shown to be the Victor over sin, death and Satan; there is no doubt that in some sense a ransom was paid (tho' not to Satan). I don't think anyone denies these things- leastways, I don't. But in the absence of Penal Substitution they all fall wretchedly short. If Christ has not paid for My sins in full, then I will have to pay for them myself, otherwise God is not 'Just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

 

[JonC]

Every time I think we have sorted this question out between us, you manage to come up with a 'But' that throws the whole thing into doubt again.

There is no doubt that the cross shows the love of God to guilty sinners; there is no doubt that on the cross, Christ is shown to be the Victor over sin, death and Satan; there is no doubt that in some sense a ransom was paid (tho' not to Satan). I don't think anyone denies these things- leastways, I don't. But in the absence of Penal Substitution they all fall wretchedly short. If Christ has not paid for My sins in full, then I will have to pay for them myself, otherwise God is not 'Just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

I agree in that all theories fall short. There will always be a "but" or an "and also".

What I disagree about has nothing to do with Scripture, but the theories and context that some apply to Scripture. As Morris mentioned, the criticism of Penal Substitution Theory is valid against some presentations.

There are issues that I would love to see legitimately addressed and honestly laid out for examination. On the part of PST, there are issues of "forgiveness", of the nature of "sin" such as it can be transferred, of separating sin and sinner, ect. On the part of those who would deny PST there are issues of the legal languages Paul uses to describe Christ's work on the Cross, of both penal and substitutionary aspects throughout Scripture as a whole, of our legal standing with God through Christ.

But this topic is held emotionally by far too many people (on all sides). It is based on Scripture (substitute just about all of the major theories for "it"), but often held as tradition. So attempts at discussion yield "If Christ has not paid for my sins in full, then I will have to pay for them myself, otherwise God is not 'Just and the Justifier of the one who believes in Jesus'". No one has argued otherwise. But there are presuppositions that need to be addressed even in that statement (some could argue, for example, that God is just because all suffer the consequence of physical death, and justifyer as those who are justified will be raised to life in Christ). Sometimes people are so entrenched in their own tradition that they do not even see what is a product of theology and what is Scripture itself.

But to offer an example of what I am saying, look at the tract that are often given explaining the gospel. Read what Paul said of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. Do you see the difference?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My comment is that legitimate dialogue has always proved impossible here. For example, there is no need to reply with "If Christ has not paid for My sins in full the I will have to pay for them myself, otherwise God is not Just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus" because we have already confirmed that point.

I find that dialogue with you is very difficult because having agreed on a point you seem intent on rowing back on it. I very much suspect that you do not agree, because if we did you would not keep throwing in your little comments and we could move onto something else. That is why I keep repeating the salient point.

But to offer an example of what I am saying, look at the tracts that are often given explaining the gospel. Read what Paul said of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. Do you see the difference?

'For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.........' It is only in the light of Christ's atoning death that the Resurrection can even be mentioned. Of course the resurrection is of vital importance, because it is the proof that Christ was not merely a man; that God has indeed been propitiated by His death, and that because He is the firstfruits from the dead, we can know that we shall arise at His second coming (v.23).

Tracts, by their very nature are brief and usually have to concentrate on just one or two things. For a tract to speak of the cross without the resurrection is incomplete, but to speak of the resurrection without the cross would be ridiculous.