Reymond ~ Christology

(623-702)

I appreciated Reymond’s presentation concerning the “major revision” in Christian thought of the cross work of Jesus Christ. His argument concerning the “God-ward reference” of the cross work was helpful, but in a few areas I am needing refinement of thought, so maybe you guys can help clarify those areas.

First, (in accordance with the previous discussion concerning Reymond’s overstatement in regards to reconciliation) I question the legitimacy of Reymond’s use of aorist tense in the 4 passages on reconciliation (643-650). I understand that the aorist can be and often is used “punctiliarly.” I recognize that Paul uses it in reference to the cross work which was an “accomplished fact.” However, does the aorist in reference to the -allasso verbs demand “a past, objective, and forensic event” and never “a subjective ongoing operation in men’s hearts”? (647) Is he freighting the aorist with more than it was intended? I lose him when he states, “Such a change of attitude clearly can be true only of God and only with reference to the elect since most men continue in their enmity toward God” (647).

Second, in his treatment of Eph. 2:14-17 he remarks, “…clearly it is God’s enmity which Paul says…” (649). I am having a hard time seeing the “clarity” amidst his “God-ward reference” presupposition.

Third, should we even answer the question “to whom was Christ’s death as a ransom paid?” (657) God paid God a ransom?

Lastly, footnote 25 on 692-93, Reymond seems to reject the God has two wills. I disagree with Reymond that view projected by Murray “imputes irrationality to God.”