from 40 Questions About the Atonement by
Channing Crisler
Paul admonished Timothy to preach, always. The public proclamation of the sacred word has been a staple in the Christian tradition. One could say that many have heeded Paul’s admonition to Timothy.1 However, the prominence of preaching and the prominence of Jesus’s death in that preaching are not one and the same. Today’s preachers focus upon a variety of issues and topics that do not necessarily place Jesus’s death at the center of their preaching.2 Even proponents of expositional preaching do not necessarily accentuate Jesus’s death, given the fact that most biblical texts do not speak about Jesus’s death directly. Should that be the case? Should Jesus’s death be prominent in preaching today? To be more specific, since I will answer in the affirmative, as I suspect many readers will, why should Jesus’s death be prominent in preaching today? As we shall see, the justification for featuring Jesus’s death in preaching is grounded in this work’s larger focus on atonement.
While the historical development of the doctrine is fascinating in its own right, we should be ever mindful that divine election is first and foremost a biblical doctrine rooted deeply within the Old and New Testaments. Though various theological traditions hold to specific beliefs about this doctrine, election itself does not belong to them but to God. It is Scripture that teaches us that God elects and how he goes about it. As such, we will begin our study by exploring the Scriptures in an attempt to develop a biblical definition of election, then we will explore how this definition unifies Christians while leaving room for differences of opinion.
A Case for “Christopository” Preaching
There are a variety of homiletical genres.3 One common thread in these genres is that they are tied to the biblical text in some way. Regardless of the specific genre, what I propose here is that the homilist should ultimately preach Christ from every text in any genre of preaching. A case can and should be made for what I refer to as “Christopository” preaching, which the early church practiced (Question 3).4 Christopository preaching simply refers to preaching the person and work of Christ from every biblical text in either canon and in any homiletical setting. This is not to suggest we set aside the preaching of the word as clearly taught in Scripture (see 2 Tim. 4:2; 1 Peter 1:22–25). Rather, it is to identify the crucified and risen Jesus as the “big idea” of every passage and thereby every sermon.5 Support for this approach to contemporary preaching rests on four points.
First, Jesus identified himself as the direct object of preaching in relation to Israel’s Scriptures. For example, in response to the Jewish leaders who criticized him for healing a crippled man on the Sabbath, Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39; see also Luke 24:25–27, 44–45). Similarly, in John’s typical use of double meaning, Jesus assures his disciples, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). This is both a reference to Jesus being lifted on a cross beam at his crucifixion and the apostles “lifting him up” in their preaching.
Second, early Christian preachers regarded proclamation of the Word and Jesus as synonymous (Question 3). For example, in the speeches of Acts, references to Jesus, or the kingdom he ushered in, are often the direct object of verbal ideas related to preaching.6 Even when a written text is involved, as in the exchange between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, Luke writes, “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35).
Third, early practitioners of Christopository preaching did not limit preaching Jesus to so-called evangelistic sermons. Several elements of early church corporate worship indicate that Christ remained its central focus, including the Lord’s Supper and doxological admonitions such as, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16, italics added; see also 1 Cor. 11:23–26). Moreover, when Paul summed up his apostleship, he described his apostolic task solely in relation to the gospel (see Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 9:23; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).
Finally, if Jesus is the full disclosure and explanation of God, then all preaching should inherently be Christopository. John’s final statement in his magisterial prologue looms large here: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (John 1:18; see also 14:8–11). The writer of Hebrews makes a similar claim at the outset of his ancient homily, namely, that Jesus is God’s final word (Heb. 1:1–2). Consequently, no word can or should be preached about God that is not at the same time a christological word. This holds true even in instances where Jesus is not explicitly mentioned. Only when sermons are preached in splendid isolation from what God ultimately reveals in Christ is it possible to preach a “Christless” word from Scripture.
Christopository Preaching and the Death of Christ
To take Christopository preaching a step further, and to bring it into closer contact with the focus on atonement, the death of Christ is definitive for understanding his person and work. It follows that Christopository preaching always proclaims the benefits of the crucified and risen Christ from every biblical text. This is not to suggest that other defining aspects of Jesus can be neglected. To the contrary, all aspects of Jesus are best understood in relation to his death and resurrection.
As noted in Question 3, Matthew Bates summarizes the fundamental elements of early Christian preaching in an eight-point outline: (1) “Jesus preexisted with the Father”; (2) “Jesus took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David”; (3) “Jesus died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures”;
(4) “Jesus was buried”; (5) “Jesus was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”; (6) “Jesus appeared to many”; (7) “Jesus is seated at the right hand of God as Lord”; and (8) “Jesus will come again.”7 As reflected in the writings of the NT, early Christian preachers and teachers narrated these fundamental elements in both overlapping and unique ways according to the needs of their audiences. Nevertheless, even with such diversity, Christ’s death informed all aspects of their proclamation.
Contemporary homilists who want to be informed by early Christian practices should adopt a similar approach. While today’s audiences may vary in age, location, social status, and the like, their fundamental needs are no different than those who first heard of a crucified and risen Christ. According to the biblical text, they are plagued by the anthropological tetrad of sin, death, Satan, and God’s righteous judgment that places them in desperate need of reconciliation to God. God only provides that reconciliation in the person and work of Christ (Questions 5 and 6). Moreover, sermons primarily directed to believers likewise should underscore the atoning benefits of Jesus’s death. This was clearly the practice of NT writers who did not downgrade the importance of Jesus’s death for those who already believed in him. To the contrary, they addressed the afflictions, challenges, and expectations that defined the Christian experience through the lens of Christ’s death.
The Costly Loss of Atonement-Centered Preaching
This brings us back to our overarching question and this work’s wider focus on atonement. If homilists today aim for any substantive link to their homiletical ancestors, their sermons should be Christopository. A Christopository sermon has as its central focus the benefits of Jesus’s death and resurrection; that is, it is atonement-centered preaching. To preach Jesus is to preach God’s work of reconciliation from every biblical text to unbelievers and believers alike.
This is not to suggest that one aspect of the atonement should eclipse the historical-grammatical and biblical-canonical sense of individual books and passages of Scripture. Nor should one theory of atonement drown out all other insights that competing theories might offer. In fact, such an approach would undermine the mosaic of God’s atoning work in Christ that is spread across both canons.8 However, to deemphasize the centrality of the atonement in teaching and preaching is costly, to say the least.
The costly loss of atonement-centered preaching is threefold. First, the identity of the triune God collapses apart from the atoning work of Christ (Questions 32 and 33). The Father’s love, the Son’s obedience, and the Spirit’s gifts are predicated on and defined by the atoning death of Christ. Without atonement-centered preaching, God cannot be worshipped in spirit and in truth (John 4:23–24). Second, sinners remain unreconciled to God apart from atonement-centered preaching. Unless unbelieving listeners are confronted with the truth that God sent Christ to die for sinners and are then urged to respond in faith, there exists no possibility for their reconciliation. After all, the apostle Paul makes it clear that people cannot call upon the Lord Jesus’s name for salvation unless they hear the message of salvation from those whom God sends (Rom. 10:5–17). Third, believers lose the capacity to withstand their ongoing struggle with sin as they turn to other sources of reconciliation. Their obedience will be wrongly motivated in the sense that they will work to reconcile themselves to God.
Summary
The death of Christ should be prominent in preaching and teaching today because its absence is inconsistent with the biblical witness and too costly to believers and unbelievers alike. To preach the Word in all seasons in the way that Paul admonished Timothy is to always hold before people’s eyes the atoning work of the crucified and risen Jesus. Theological formation, a Christian ethic, the church’s mission, its worship, and all other dynamics of God’s people depend upon how prominently Christ’s death is featured in the preaching they constantly offer and hear. If preachers and teachers in the church today wish to continue in “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” their message must hold to what those saints held as most significant. As noted in Question 3, the early church found Jesus’s death as most significant for their preaching, because that death defined reconciliation with God. Therefore, the contemporary church cannot afford to make anything more significant than Christ’s atoning work.
[1] For a thorough survey of the history of preaching, see O. C. Edwards Jr., A History of Preaching, 2 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004).
[2] The late Francis James Grimké bemoaned topical sermons that replaced careful biblical exposition, noting, “The trash that is served up to the people on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings is deplorable. The sermons and exhortations made up largely of the gleanings of newspapers and magazines, with precious little of the word of God in them, and, even when it comes in, is handled in the most superficial manner. No church can be built up on that kind of preaching: no church can be made strong morally and spiritually unless it is fed on the word of God, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little” (Francis James Grimké, Meditations on Preaching [Madison, MS: Log College Press, 2018], 42).
[3] Ray Atwood identifies four genres: (1) expository preaching; (2) evangelistic preaching; (3) catechetical preaching; and (4) festal preaching. See Ray E. Atwood, Masters of Preaching: The Most Poignant Powerful Homilists in Church History (Lanham, MD: Hamilton, 2012), 5–6
[4] To my knowledge, this term is not currently used in academic discussions of homiletics. Multiple adjacent terms are employed such as “Christocentric” or “Christ-centered.”
[5] The late Haddon Robinson is responsible for the nomenclature of “big idea” preaching. Robinson explained, “Ideally each sermon is the explanation, interpretation, or applica- tion of a single dominant idea supported by other ideas, all drawn from one passage or several passages of Scripture” (Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Preaching, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001], 35).
[6] See, e.g., the use of κηρύσσω in Acts 8:5; 9:20; 10:42; 19:13; 20:25; 28:31.
[7] Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 52.
[8] On this point, see Joshua McNall, The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ’s Work (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019).
To read more, preorder a copy of 40 Questions About the Atonement by Channing Crisler, or pick up a copy!
This post is adapted from 40 Questions About the Atonement by Channing Crisler. This title was released on January 28, 2025. If you are interested in adopting this book for a college or seminary course, please request a faculty examination copy. We will also consider requests for your blog or media outlets.
Atonement sits at the very heart of Christian doctrine, describing believers’ status as “being one again” with God through Jesus Christ. It is the culmination of God’s work of reconciliation, simultaneously defining believers’ relationship with God while also describing how that relationship is restored. Because of this, how one understands atonement has a profound impact on how one views and understands God, salvation, and human nature.
New Testament scholar Channing L. Crisler offers a robust foundation for understanding the divine mystery of atonement, drawing on biblical and historical witnesses to answer pertinent questions, such as:
- Why is atonement necessary?
- What are the different theories of atonement?
- How is atonement understood by the various Christian traditions and world religions?
- What implications does one’s understanding of atonement have on the present?
Through its question-and-answer format, 40 Questions About the Atonement provides an expansive introduction to the doctrine of atonement, inviting the reader to wade into this divine mystery with curiosity and awe.
