Der renommierte Neutestamentler I. Howard Marshall hat einen lesenswerten Aufsatz geschrieben, in dem er das stellvertretende Sühneopfer von Jesus verteidigt. Unter den Evangelikalen gibt es vier Standpunkte:
-
One is that the principle of penal substitution does not figure in the New Testament at all.
-
A second is that it is only one of the pictures/metaphors/analogies used in the New Testament to express the significance of the death of Jesus Christ. Some might argue that in this case it is of lesserimportance or even dispensable.
-
A third view is it occurs to such an extent that it is not only indispensable but also the most important.
-
A fourth view is that penal substitution is the underlying principle present in all the others and the factor that makes them cohere.
Marshall weist u. a. nach, dass das Neue Testament sehr wohl von einem zukünftigen Gericht weiss. Seine Schlussfolgerungen:
-
There is a clear framework of thought in the NT which assumes a background of the future action of God against evildoers, an action of judgment in which God displays his wrath against sin and carries out judgment involving the destruction or death of sinners.
-
There is no other kind of future scenario or description of the attitude and actions of God. This is not one type of metaphorical description among others. And there is no indication of a universalism in which all are saved and none are ultimately condemned.
-
This teaching is more than just a background of thought. It becomes thematic on many occasions, and it lies at the centre of the evangelism of the early church in that salvation is conceived of as being deliverance from the consequences of sin and specifically from death and the wrath of God. Consequently, we cannot push it to one side as being less important than the other aspects of human sin and need.
