Jesus as Payment for Our Sins versus Matthew 5
Did Jesus think that his primary purpose was to stand in our place and receive the punishment from God that we deserved? Did he believe that God considered mankind to be essentially his own enemy? Did he think that God was such an inflexible judge that mankind’s universal and eternal damnation was the only way to balance the cosmic books?
If so then why does the Gospel of Matthew have Jesus say this:
‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,* what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5: 38-48)
Can God only love those who love him, as so many Christians claim? In other words; is God no better than the tax-collectors? It doesn’t really make sense, does it? That Jesus would advocate a behavior that God the father will not even practice himself; demanding instead either hellish retribution or the murder of a divine scapegoat. Though God might demand an eye for an eye (his rightful pound of flesh) when we choose not to seek this but instead forgive our enemies then we are in some way more like God? Curious.
And yet, the Bible continually makes the distinction — even in your own quote — between good, and evil, righteous and unrighteous. Why make the distinction, if there isn’t some significance?
God may LOVE all his creation, but does this somehow set aside the need for a reconciliation? A form of spiritual reconiciliation that in our fallen state we CANNOT achieve ourselves? A propitiation which must come from God, and which did, in the form of Jesus’ sacrifice?
Steve, I disagree. Understanding God’s mercy and grace as being truly unconditional does not negate the idea of ‘right and wrong’. In fact, without ‘wrong’ there is no need for mercy. The need for reconciliation is on our part (as TheoPoet points out below) not God’s. I personally don’t accept the doctrine of Hell, but I presume that most people who believe in Penal Substitution do. Perhaps it is possible to refuse reconciliation – refuse God’s forgiveness. (Is that defined as a refusal to convert to the Christian religion, as so many Christians say? Well, do Christians always, or even usually, accurately represent God’s will?)
Interesting post… sounds like one that I’m going to post soon on the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. Similar to your post—I found this interesting essay: EXCERPTS ON THE IDEA OF PUNISHMENT AND PAYMENT IN THE ATONEMENT while looking up links for my future post—although I don’t agree with everything that essay says—it does make valid points. See also: The Meaning of the Atonement—here is a summary of that:
Penal substitution does have it’s flaws, but fundamentalist especially of the more Calvinistic type ala Todd Friel and John MacArthur. Personally I believe that we should look at all the different theories of the atonement flaws and all and accept them as humans trying to make sense of what we see through a glass darkly. However that said—I lean more towards the Christus Victor view myself as being more consistent with God’s self-revelation in Christ.
Thanks Ben. Good points.
I’m not sure what you mean by “I believe that we should look at all the different theories of the atonement flaws and all and accept them as humans trying to make sense of what we see through a glass darkly”
Are you suggesting that ALL the theories have some validity? If so, I’m not sure I agree with that. For example, I do believe that Jesus ‘died for our sins’, but not in the same way this is most commonly presented. In my opinion, it was mankind’s sin of pride and ego, that results in hatred in violence, that killed Jesus. And we continue to ‘kill him’ to this day.
In answer to your question, Christian, yes and no. Yes in the sense of historical theology when one studies the contexts in which the different theories emerged. All these theories are manmade which is why thoughts, theories and opinions of God are ever evolving but as I said these things are formulated by humans trying to make sense of what we see through a glass darkly. God is too vast to be comprehended in total or limited to any one static theory. However, I do agree with you that “it was mankind’s sin of pride and ego, that results in hatred in violence, that killed Jesus. And we continue to ‘kill him’ to this day.” So the no is obviously in the sense of individual believers, who when evaluating different atonement theories choose that which doesn’t conflict with how they view who Jesus is.
opps. fundamentalists
opps. Penal substitution does have it’s flaws, but fundamentalists especially of the more Calvinistic type ala Todd Friel and John MacArthur won’t hear of it.
Christian,
I’ve noticed that most of your recent posts have taken a harder line against any view of Christianity to the right of Shelby Spong. What’s up with that? Somebody with a ‘Honk If You Love Jesus’ bumper sticker cut you off in traffic? You’re becoming downright fundamentalist in your opposition to, well, fundamentalism.
Steve, you are so darn observant.
Remember, I was that guy with the bumper sticker and it was more along the lines of “Honk if You Aren’t Going to Hell”. I guess I’m like those ex-smokers who can’t stand to see others smoking. (Not really, though. I think they’re driven by envy.)
Anyway, I’m no more opposed to fundamentalism today than I was last year. I just keep coming across new material. We’re doing a critical study on Penal Substitution at my church right now so it’s in the forefront of my mind.
Now I could suggest that your postings tend to be consistently to the right of William F. Buckley but….I like William F. Buckley’s ideas (and yours as well). Spong presents some pretty strong arguments (as well as some weak ones) and I don’t always agree with him but he makes me think. Just as you do.
I guess you think the whole penal substitution concept of atonement is groovy, huh?
Yeah, I’m good with it. I don’t see any inconsistency in the words of Scripture and the idea of substitutionary atonement. Love and justice all in the same box.
In the 18 months or so since getting the boot from a fundie church I’ve come to see that there is more than justice and condemnation in the nature of God – actually I’ve always known it, but I’ve seen in more clearly lately. I have to say, though, that as I’ve watched the changes in society since the election, I find myself drifting back to those OT and NT passages that speak to the fate of people (and nations) who reject God. We have to live Christ-like lives and minister to a hurting world, but we can’t neglect the call to give warning to those who turn away.
Getting booted from ‘fundie church’? I’d love to hear more of that.
oh my goodness!! genius!
You mean Steve, right? Then I agree.
Penal Substitution declares that salvation must be earned by perfect, perpetual obedience;
To me, that is “fundamentally” unBiblical. Eph 2:8 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Where does repentance fit in, then? If I can just expect God’s forgiveness like a free sample of cheese weenies at the end of the aisle at Costco, will it have any value for me?
I know that God loves us, beyond even our ability to love ourselves, but unless you just dump the Bible altogether, there is an inescapable element of atonement, repentance and forgiveness, without which you are no longer talking about Christianity, and instead a more generalized theism of which Christianity is just another “guess” alongside all the other world’s religions.
Penal Substitution declares that salvation must be earned by perfect, perpetual obedience;
The who ‘did the earning’ was Christ. We obviously are incapable of perfect, perpetual obedience. The gift of salvation is for those who accept His sacrifice, and therefore those who reject Him receive the required penalty.
Ah. Atonement is not in dispute here, but Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The issues are even more elemental. If we cannot find biblical support for the doctrine of Original Sin or the doctrine of hell then there is no support for Penal Substitution. I think that’s why so many believers (correctly) feel that the Theory of Evolution begins to topple a house of theological cards.
I have no doubt that Jesus sacrifice is an atoning sacrifice, but I believe that it changes our nature and not the nature of God. Abelard, not Anselm.
If we cannot find biblical support for the doctrine of Original Sin or the doctrine of hell
There’s quite a gulf of difference between ‘cannot find’ and ‘do not see’ or worse yet, ‘choose not to see’. I see plenty of Scriptural evidence for all of the above, as well as for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I can provide evidence for a given doctrinal position, but I can’t fix ‘I don’t choose to interpret it that way.’
That argument cuts both ways. I think that scripture (as in Matthew 5) supports others ideas of atonement. I can’t help it either, if you refuse to see it.
I didn’t write:
The article I linked to did, but anyways, I never said that I disagreed with the idea of the penal substitution theory of the atonement. What I disagree with is those that believe it is the only theory of the atonement. Limiting the atonement to any one flawed and manmade theory of the atonement does a disservice to ourselves and others. Instead I propose that when one looks at all the theories of the atonement a more holistic approach to the atonement emerges as each flawed theory corrects the flaws of the others. For example, the Ransom is flawed in the fact that makes God out to be a deceiver but it’s scripturally supported in1 Timothy 2:5-6:
And when one reads the Jewish Exile as a metaphor for human slavery to sin, so that the Ransom theory is one that emerges from the picture of the marketplace with the Gospels use of lutron and more accurately a slave market with the theory’s metaphorical use of Exilic literature.
opps. the Ransom theory of the atonement is flawed in the fact that makes God out to be a deceiver
oops. it makes God out to be a deceiver
I’ll finish the rest of my assessment later, but here’s a good book that summarizes all the major theories of the atonement: Guide to Christian Belief (Questions of Faith) by Mark W. G. Stibbe.
I believe the problem with understanding the atonement was caused when the “Christian Church” removed Jesus’ message from the Jews and created a Christian religious alternative. This of course was a necessity in order to establish themselves as the new “chosen people” of God rather than simply a people grafted into the original vine.
The greater part of Jesus’ ministry was about removing the legalistic yoke that the Pharisees had placed on God’s people. He came to spread the “Good News” of the gospel of heaven: Matthew: 4.17 “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (this of course was Jesus himself as prophesized)
There was no Gospel of Jesus the Christ at the time. The law had placed the High Priest as the mediator between the Jew and God who by the Pharisees’ interpretation was needed to atone for man’s sins that separated them from God. Only by paying the price for their sacrifices at the Feast of Atonement, where the High Priest would kill the unspotted lamb in the ritual of purification that would cleanse the people of the past year’s sins.
Jesus’ announcement that He was the unspotted Lamb of God that would be sacrificed once and for all for man‘s sin and inferring He was the prophesied Messiah, is essentially what got Him crucified and opened the way for the Gentiles to also be reconciled to the Father. Atonement made, Law fulfilled, it was now as God had intended… an opportunity for anyone to develop a personal relationship with God through His Son and High Priest… Jesus. You can only know this if the Spirit reveals it to you.
John the Baptist first announced this plan in Matt: 3 11-12 11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
The message of Atonement is simple so why is there so much debate? Penal substitute? Just words. Believe what you want. The Holy Spirit is the one who reveals this to those who follow Jesus. They should need no more explanation or interpretation. Those who reject this truth about Jesus when shown by the Holy Spirit, miss the opportunity to be set free. The truth is they will still one day know and accept the truth because the Bible says, “Every head shall bow and every knee shall bend.”
I guess what I’m saying is, Christians who spread a religious message of Jesus usually end up replacing the Jewish yoke of legal religiosity with the new yoke of false Christian doctrine. Men such as these are not Christians led by the Holy Spirit, nor do they hear the voice of Jesus.
Of course this is just my opinion but it is both Scriptural and Spiritually given. What do you think?
“Christians who spread a religious message of Jesus usually end up replacing the Jewish yoke of legal religiosity with the new yoke of false Christian doctrine”
Well put. It didn’t take long for the church to realize that in order to maintain power they had to reinstate the priesthood that Jesus supposedly had replaced. The Protestant Reformation had taken care of this mistake for their own members yet it took them little time to come up with their own religious trumpery. In both cases, the idea of Penal Substitution, tied to Original sin and the doctrines of hell were very persuasive when it came to keeping everyone in line.
I don’t know how ’simple’ this message of atonement is. For one thing there are numerous ideas about the atonement, what it means, what Christ accomplished and how it works out in our lives. What did Christ’s disciples think? The prevailing theory (Penal Substitution) was not something that they would have been aware of.
Now, before the law was written – Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses – they knew God but did not know the ‘law’ nor did they know Jesus. This troubling situation has resulted in the development of tortuous theories of succeeding covenants and multiple dispensations that really have no root in scripture but are by products of religion’s attempts to justify it’s own theories.
It seems to me that this idea of atonement -of our collective ’sins’ being placed upon Christ, the sacrificial ‘lamb’ of God – tends to encourage the scapegoating tendencies of believers and consequently the secular world. Instead of identifying with Christ, the innocent who was crucified, in some way we identify with God’s righteous thirst for justice, that can only be satisfied with eternal damnation of all mankind or the blood sacrifice of this innocent substitute. We understand this necessity and we continue to work it out in many ways every day. We either do not see or refuse to see those sacrificial victims that we are guilty of scapegoating, both near and far.
A case in point; Ted Haggard took his sin, which he found to be abhorrent, and placed it upon the shoulders of others who he publicly pilloried. They were the scapegoat for his own sin. Too often religious people act like the over zealous ex-smokers who condemn and decry the man lighting up a cigarette in his own backyard. Instead of being empathetic and non-condemning (like Jesus) we are righteous and judgmental. Sacrificial scapegoating is usually an effective. but always only temporary, fix to a situation, but it is always dead wrong. Always. What kind of lesson is God giving us when he demands it?
Well put Christ.
I’d like to add that Jesus wasn’t concerned with Atonement for our sins but fulfilling the Law that the Sanhedrin created to increase their power and their treasury by selling “sanctified” animals for the sinners to sacrifice for their sins. Jesus simply told the woman at the well to, “Go and sin no more.” The Apostles told us if we confessed and repented from our sin God would be faithful to forgive us. That is why I believe the message of the Atonement is a simple one. However as it is taught by the Church, in whatever form, it is not Scripturally correct as far as Jesus was concerned. How could He forgive someone’s sins if the Jewish Law was correct? He hadn’t died yet. He hadn’t become our scapegoat and He wasn’t yet the Sacrificial Lamb of God. He was either a crazy man or God’s Messiah or God Himself? Or both?
If indeed Jesus is the leader of the Christian faith then we who claim to be His followers should follow His teachings and not those created by a new Christian Sanhedrin.
The idea of Jesus atoning for our sins on the cross is a man made concept born out of Jewish Law not the teachings of Jesus.
Sorry for that typo! I didn’t put that “T” on the end of your name on purpose.
“If indeed Jesus is the leader of the Christian faith then we who claim to be His followers should follow His teachings and not those created by a new Christian Sanhedrin.”
Great line, Net. I think I’ll quote you, if you don’t mind. And thanks for explaining that “T”. I don’t need the pressure.
Meanwhile, keep on eye on Ben’s upcoming series on Atonement at his website, TheoPoetic Musings
Personally, I agree with the Theopoet, I think there are elements of the Ransom, Christus Victor, and Penal Substitution theories that are simultaneously valid. The atonement is multifaceted, and can’t be described with just one metaphor.
My concern with the post and it’s comments is the ungenerous phrasing, poor assumptions, and far-fetched positions attributed to those who believe in penal substitution.
Did he think that God was such an inflexible judge that mankind’s universal and eternal damnation was the only way to balance the cosmic books?
He spoke quite a bit about the “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He tells parables in which the majority of the characters aren’t allowed into the feast. He speaks of the broad road to destruction (sounds pretty “universal and eternal” coming from the mouth of God). Inflexible? Only if he offers no alternative to damnation.
Can God only love those who love him, as so many Christians claim?
I don’t pretend to know the claims of “so many Christians”, but I’ve known none who claim this.
That Jesus would advocate a behavior that God the father will not even practice himself
God did practice it. That’s why Jesus was there in the first place.
Understanding God’s mercy and grace as being truly unconditional does not negate the idea of ‘right and wrong’.
This may be where you went off the rails…God’s mercy and grace has never been unconditional. The condition has always been obedience and sacrifice. You’re correct that there is no need for mercy without “wrong”, though.
he need for reconciliation is on our part (as TheoPoet points out below) not God’s.
This post is actually the first time I’ve ever heard the idea that God would need to be reconciled to us. You find me a real live person who believes this, and I’ll give you…at least a dollar.
If we cannot find biblical support for the doctrine of Original Sin or the doctrine of hell then there is no support for Penal Substitution.
The doctrine of Original Sin is not necessary for PS. We do not have to believe we have inherited guilt for Adam’s sin because we are human…that would have made Jesus guilty as well. We need only believe that “all have sinned”, and that we all have sin – that is, we are slaves to it, and stained by it. And, as Steve said, if you can’t find support for Hell in the Bible, you’re choosing not to find it.
I believe that it changes our nature and not the nature of God.
I have heard a couple of elementary and middle school students ask if God changed, but most of the adults I know believe that it was us who were changed.
What did Christ’s disciples think? The prevailing theory (Penal Substitution) was not something that they would have been aware of.
Of course not. Neither, I think, were the Ransom or Christus Victor theories, the idea of the Jews not having a temple, the possibility that the Church would be majority Gentile, or any number of things. That doesn’t mean they are untrue. Penal substitution is a plainly obvious theme in the epistles, along with others. It didn’t have the name, but it did have the substance.
Instead of identifying with Christ, the innocent who was crucified
We can’t ID with Christ, because we aren’t innocent, and we have no authority. We should identify with the people he forgave and healed throughout his ministry.
If Haggard blamed others, that’s sin in him, not an atonement theory. You don’t need to know anything of Jesus to shirk responsibility and point fingers. You’re right about one thing, sometimes we lose focus and condemn people for the same things we used to do.
Instead of being empathetic and non-condemning (like Jesus) we are righteous and judgmental. Sacrificial scapegoating is usually an effective. but always only temporary, fix to a situation, but it is always dead wrong.
I would agree with you, except the Bible, in a lot of places, says Jesus is different. The others were temporary, but Jesus was “once for all”. And “non-condemning”? Have you not seen Mt. 23? Or John 3:18? He called people “white-washed tombs” and filthy cups. He, of course, had the authority to do so. We do not.
If you choose to look at this theory and see a blood-thirsty God who wants someone to pay, rather than a patient and loving God who comes to pay what we couldn’t (then offers grace to all who respond), there’s nothing that can be said that will convince you. But I’ll try anyway.
Jesus is God. So when Jesus offers himself as a sacrifice, that’s God offering himself as a sacrifice. And because of that sacrifice, we are free to enter his presence, and be saved according to “his pleasure and will.”
If Christ did not die as a substitute for us, what was the purpose of his death? Symbolism? Was he simply showing us how far he would go? Was he only setting an example for us? Was he just demonstrating that he is superior to death? Or was he actually going the distance, and defeating death? Those are all aspects of penal substitution that you’ve left out of your critique.
I’d suggest you not paint those of us who believe this as judgmental, unsympathetic, and unbiblical, because the arguments in favor of the theory are strong. What we believe about how atonement works is not nearly as important to me as recognizing that we are not as you’ve described us.
Good points.
“ungenerous phrasing, poor assumptions, and far-fetched positions attributed to those who believe in penal substitution”
You are right. It was a mistake on my part to suggest that all who believe in Penal Substitution believe these things. I was speaking to the more extreme proponents of PSA theory.
“I don’t pretend to know the claims of “so many Christians”,I’ve known none who claim this”
In the course of conversations that I have had with a number of Calvinst’s, this is precisely what I have heard from them, many times; that God only loves the elect.
“but most of the adults I know believe that it was us who were changed”
But isn’t it implied that God has a change of heart when it comes to how he regards us individually? From an attitude of anger and wrath to one of mercy, for those who accept Jesus? But I get your point.
“Penal substitution is a plainly obvious theme in the epistles, along with others.”
Not that obvious, or we wouldn’t be having discussions like this. As you pointed out earlier, we can find merit and flaws in all the theories. The idea that all are correct makes sense if we are saying that no one of them is completely ‘correct’ – that it takes more than just one theory to explain something that is perhaps beyond explanation. I am talking to those who regard Jesus’ most important (and perhaps only) role as that of the sacrificial substitution.
“We can’t ID with Christ, because we aren’t innocent, and we have no authority”
I’m talking about empathy here. If we can’t empathize with others we will continue to ignore their plight. When we identify with the victims we are identifying with Christ who says that when we serve others we are in some way serving him as well. Though no one is fully “innocent”, many are innocently victimized. In a discussion I had with some ardent Christian supporters of capital punishment (who were claiming that God demanded the ‘righteous’ death of certain offenders), I argued that there were serious flaws in the system and the strong possibility that innocent people would be executed. One response was that if they had made their peace with God they would be in paradise, so their sacrifice would be worthwhile. I think this type of mindset is a result of PSA theology.
Of course, Haggard’s sin is his own, but it is hardly unique. It’s almost become a cliche’ that many non-believers refer to when asked about Christianity. Scapegoating has always seemed to be a problem for religion (and you’re right – not just with Christianity). Why is this? Is scapegoating intrinsic to human behavior? Shouldn’t at least the Christian church behave better here than others? But for some reason it has not, in fact it is often the source of the problem. And this problem – of placing our ’sins’ on the shoulders of others while at the same time wanting or resenting what they have – appears to be at the heart of violent human conflict.
I think it’s interesting that you suggest Matthew 23 as an example of Jesus’ condemning others, since those he condemns are the religious leaders who tend to put orthodoxy over compassion, the law above love. And the condemnation of John 3:18 becomes a little bit murkier when it is compared to the line that immediately precedes it; “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him”. What does believing IN Jesus mean? I think it means more than just accepting certain propositions about him.
“If you choose to look at this theory and see a blood-thirsty God who wants someone to pay”
If you want people to understand this differently then perhaps we need to change the language, as you have just done. The words typically used to explain PSA theory tend to paint a picture of just such a blood-thirsty and angry God. Don’t you ever wonder why so many take away this impression?
“what was the purpose of his death”
And that’s the point of the post – not to lay out my own theories but to discuss the prevalent one(s). If those qualities that you mention are a part of the theory of Penal Substitution,well, I have not heard them as often as the idea that the violent death of Jesus was a blood sacrifice made to pay off our debt to God, a debt that can otherwise only result in our eternal damnation.
It is too paradoxical; that Jesus, who preached against violence and vengeance, would have a Father who uses violence (the cross) to avenge himself of our offenses against him. If God is light, and there is no darkness in him (1 John 1) then how can we accept this?
By preaching against punishment but for empathy and forgiveness (Matt 5) along with a God who is accessible and personal (1 John 4, Eph 2), Jesus threatened the order of a religious system that uses God as means to personal power – a system that thinks little of ’sacrificing’ others, often in the name of God. He went the distance for sure – died for our sins, sins that are rooted in our intrinsic, animalistic, selfish nature to put our own needs and wants before others. A nature that changed little from Adam to Caiaphas or from Caiaphas to the church of today.
Jesus showed us that we can do the same things – to not be afraid to confront this sin wherever and whenever we find it. We need not be afraid to sacrifice ourselves for others, we need not be afraid to take on the punishment that might befall us when we stand for ( or in place of ) others. Jesus defeated death and we can take hope in his promise. This hope helps to free us here and now – our salvation, our healing, is accessible to us the moment we begin to ‘put on the mind of Christ’(Phil 2) – to identify with him and his nature. Our salvation is worked out in how closely we follow Jesus to the cross – the very narrow way of service and self-sacrifice, but sacrifice as a gift we give and not a price we pay. I find this idea of sacrifice hard to find in PSA theory.
I think it was N.T. Wright who summed up all the debate over atonement when he said” on the night before he died, Jesus did not give us a theory, he gave us a meal”. Of course anything having to do with the sacredness of a meal certainly appeals to me.
Sorry for any offense I may have caused (again, I was speaking to the extreme and often bellicose proselytizers out there ) As for painting anyone as ‘unbiblical’ – isn’t that the precise argument you are using against me? That’s OK – I can take it.
Anyway, thanks for making me think some more.
Christian,
That was a pretty gracious reply, thanks.
In response to the idea that God only loves the elect, you should listen to Matt Chandler’s “Are There Two Wills in God?” sermon (the podcast is in the archive at thevillagechurch.net). I’m sure that it’s a perspective that you don’t hear often, but it’s deep.
God doesn’t have a change of heart, we have a change of status. As sinners standing on our own merit, we deserve one thing; as saints standing behind the perfection of Christ, we receive another.
I said that penal substitution is a theme. And it is plainly obvious. I shouldn’t have restricted it to the epistles, though:
Three consecutive references to our sins on Christ, and one explicit in saying that the reason for his death. Hebrews 9 and 10 are great examples, as well (“…he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once…so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many…”).
I don’t think the mindset you describe on capital punishment is a result of PSA, I think it’s a result of being human. We want to see “justice” done here and now. This is a “shoot first” mentality better attributed to cheesy westerns and bad spy stories than an atonement theory. It doesn’t fit because the key attribute that makes Christ’s death wonderful instead of terrible is that he chose it. And he chose to take the punishment for our sin. So the Haggard’s of the world who finger point, and the cowboys who shoot first and sort it out later did not get their lessons from PSA. Scapegoating existed long before PSA (think Nero), and will exist as long as we do.
The problem of empathy is serious, and a problem many conservative believers have is that they don’t remember or never knew what it was like to be blinded by sin, so they can’t empathize with those who are. And thank you for putting the blame for violence on human pride and envy, rather than on any particular belief structure.
I think it’s interesting that you suggest Matthew 23 as an example of Jesus’ condemning others, since those he condemns are the religious leaders who tend to put orthodoxy over compassion, the law above love. And the condemnation of John 3:18 becomes a little bit murkier when it is compared to the line that immediately precedes it; “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him”. What does believing IN Jesus mean? I think it means more than just accepting certain propositions about him.
The religious leaders were people, and Jesus condemned them. They opposed what was central to his ministry. Why is it so interesting? Do you assume that because I sympathize with PSA that I have no compassion, or that I place the “law” above love? Or does this not count as condemnation, since you think they deserved it? (I do too)
Jn 3:18 actually helps you understand why he didn’t need to send him to condemn, because those who don’t believe are already condemned. So you’re right, since it’s past tense condemnation, it doesn’t fit. And I also think that believing in Jesus “means more than just accepting certain propositions about him.” Again, why do you assume I don’t? Even the demons believe…
Don’t you ever wonder why so many take away this impression?
I think it’s because they only stay for half the story, if the sacrifice is told first. And I also think that that is telling he story backwards. It should always begin with, “God showed his love for us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” What do you think? Anyway, there’s a lot to do with blood, but the shedding of Christ’s blood is an act of love.
I think those things are a part of PSA, and the reason you don’t hear them often in that context is because no one disputes them. That means there’s little reason to include it in an explanation. The blood sacrifice bit is what people tend to disagree with, which makes it the part that is defended.
And I’m sorry, but there is nothing “too paradoxical” with Jesus. He is God and man. He, the good teacher, takes to the task of the house’s lowest servant. He sets a standard of perfect obedience, then offers unlimited forgiveness.
Jesus told us to eschew violence and vengeance, but God doesn’t fall into the “us” category. And while God uses violence to “to avenge himself of our offenses against him”, he does violence to himself.
Don’t forget that God sits as righteous judge. That’s not something the church made up. It was there already. He holds the authority to judge us, but we have no authority. That’s why we’re instructed not to judge or condemn. Not because those things are wrong. This doesn’t constitute darkness.
I totally agree with the paragraph beginning with “By preaching against punishment…” But what do you mean when you say he “died for our sins”, if not as a substitute?
sacrifice as a gift we give and not a price we pay. I find this idea of sacrifice hard to find in PSA theory.
Christ’s sacrifice was such a gift. And that is the crux of PSA. Jesus owed no debt, and had no price to pay. He offered himself in our place, as a gift of grace, so that we’d be able to receive God’s mercy, which he wanted to so badly to give that he came down as Jesus to make it happen. I’m not really sure what you imply by “sacrifce…as a price we pay.” We have nothing to give, only sin.
Of course Jesus didn’t give us a theory, that’s a rather trite and uninsightful way of juxtaposing theories from people centuries on who sought understanding with the man going through the ordeal which we seek to understand. In a way Jesus’ whole ministry was about giving us theories (forgiveness, salvation, baptism, sabbath, faith). That’s what teaching is. And he was…is…a good teacher. But at the end he ate with his friends, as we all should. He, of course, taught a fair bit that night as well.
I would tend to paint the beliefs you describe here as unbiblical, mainly because they ignore loads of scripture, while pushing some significant logical problems (Jesus told us we shouldn’t judge, so God must not judge either). Saying you find no evidence for Hell is a pretty big one, as well.
I’ll end with a question: if you don’t believe in hell, what did Jesus save us from? And for what purpose? And how do you deal with passages about condemnation, destruction, and punishment in the eternal sense? Sorry that was three questions.
Thanks, Charles. I really appreciate your in depth responses. (Some of us in my community are in the middle of a ‘class’ on atonement theory and your perspective is going to be helpful, I think.)
At this moment I don’t have the time to seriously engage your side of this discussion (I am usually running behind on Sunday mornings) only to answer this question:
“Do you assume that because I sympathize with PSA that I have no compassion, or that I place the “law” above love?”
No- not at all. Again, my original post addressed what I believe to be the flaws in PSA and those who are zealous, even ‘angrily’ zealous in it’s promotion. They likely represent a minority position, but a very vocal position none the less (represented by some of those preachers and popes that Bruce mentions below). I do you a disservice because you are not aware of some of the past conversations we have had this blog with some of these folk, who though I am sure are good intentioned, are very strident and eventually, almost always, resort to ad hominem arguments.
This is why it is such a pleasure to have someone like you take the time to present your opposing ideas in such a civil and edifying manner.
You wrote:Did he believe that God considered mankind to be essentially his own enemy?
No!
But more than a few preachers and popes have built their empires on such a viewpoint.
That doesn’t sound like the word of “preachers and popes”.
Jesus showed us that we can do the same things
Christian,
Perhaps I’m wrong, and you are taking a more academic approach, but I seem to sense a general thread in your comments that Jesus’ life, and his death (crucifixion) were meant as examples to show us that perfect obedicence IS possible?
Or that his death was merely a punishment meted out to the disobedient, for which he was our stand-in?
Where in this discussion lies the Resurrection? If Jesus’ death was merely a personal sacrifice for our collective sins, a physcial propitiation, it denies the spirutal aspect of it, which is, ultimately, at the core of Christianity. It was not Jesus’ life, or his death, which sets Christianity apart. Nor was it merely his death that brought us reconciliation with God.
Only through his Resurrection did he demonstrate victory over death, and only in the Resurrection did his death become anything more than simple martyrdom.
To suggest (not saying you are) that Jesus’ life, death, and even resurrection are merely idealized examples of perfect obedicence negates the essence of His ministry.
Our obedience as Christians is (or should be) born out of gratitude, reverence, and understanding, not fear of retribution or a desparate desire to try and “achieve” or “preserve” our salvation through works. That takes us right back into the laps of the Pharisees.
I’m one of those crazy types that believes that in Christ’s willing self-sacrifice (not an imposed punishment by an angry, bloodthirsty god), combined with his essential divine nature, did not change God, but changed the rules, and allowed something to happen which up until that point HAD NOT BEEN POSSIBLE. That is, a full reconciliation to God, once and for all. It was a supernatural event, not merely a physical one. I believe that we will not truly understand what that sacrifice, that reconciliation, cost God until we are with Him, if even then.
The ideas of blood-thristy, vengence-oriented god who requires a perfect sacrifice to appease him, and a loving, sacrificial God who gives OF HIMSELF to allow His creations to be reconciled to Him, or contradictory and incompatible.
And it is the latter, not the former, that I see in the Bible, in the life and death of Jesus, the Crhist.
What I mean is that the “jusification/judicial” viewpoint keeps parishoners in line–and preachers and popes capitalize on this fear to keep the chickens in line, so to speak; and this can lead to abuse.
L-
Absolutely agree. I attended an Assembly of God church that we really liked. During one “revival” event, I volunteered as a “councilor” to help people who came forward to be saved. I found in interesting that the mentor staff who were instructing us were very clear on the exact prayer that we needed to lead these new believers through to “ensure” that they were really saved.
On the one hand I agree that is important to make sure people understand what it is they are doing, and to what they are committing, but on the other, I found the legalism very distrubing.
Hey, I’m sort of a recovering Charismatic.
We attended A/G churches–and I had my initial training as a teacher at Vanguard University, an A/G college.
We attended “name-it,claim it” groups and one that was more rational–to a point; but all (including Vanguard University) seem bent on building really big buildings, which was a common theme in the two churches we attended for an extended period, as well as the A/G associated with the college.
Hmm.
God has certain rights over creation as creator.
I have heard this line of reasoning before: God, through Christ, has commanded us to forgive and not seek retribution. Therefore, Christ’s death could not be a penal substitutional sacrifice (retribution or just punishment on the sins of men). For, if Christ’s death was primarily the Father punishing sins on Christ then God would not seem to be able to obey his own command.
If I have understood this correctly, I respond:
Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
Deu 32:35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’
Rom 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Men ought not revenge because they have no right to, nor do we even fully understand what a just retribution would be in most cases. (Indeed, why else would God labor through Moses to give the Law if men knew how to accurately appraise evil?)
But the comfort drawn from this is that God certainly will call to account, make retribution, and punish their evil. This is taught very clearly by Paul and Moses.
I also think that Penal substitution–although primarily biblical–is an existential need. One must only look at the acts of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or even Davids murder of Uriah after he slept with his wife. Can these things be swept under a cosmic rug? Only if God is unjust.
There is no such thing, scripturally speaking, as Jesus as payment for man’s sin VERSUS Matthew 5. they complement one another, as do other portions of scripture. but then again, the inerancy and authority of scripture is not a populat topic in apostate Emergentville.
Hi, Dan.
Scriptural innerancy and authority are not at issue here. Once again, it is a matter of interpretation. Fundamentalists insist that their INTERPRETATIONS of scripture speak with authority. It is silly and futile to bandy about these accusations of apostacy. Luther and Calvin were/are considered apostates by the Church at large. Jesus was considered a Jewish apostate. To question the prevailing religious authority is at times necessary if one is to seek the truth.(Emergentville. Is that a place like the Left Coast? The Bible Belt? Colorado Springs? Lakeland?)
How does Matthew 5 complement the PSA?
I knew that, Christian. I just couldn’t get past that title. To deny penal substitution/substutionary atonement is to deny what is clear from scripture, on it’s pages, not to mention the reason God sent His Son to earth to secure a people for Himself, for His glory, to present as a gift to His Son, who died for them.
If turning away from the clear teaching of scripture is by definition of apostasy, well. . . .
Yeah, but Dan. Your premise assumes that these understandings of the incarnation and atonement are universally accepted within the church and have always been so. Which hasn’t been the case. They have been part of explicit church doctrine, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, for some time. But even within Protestantism there are differences of opinion here. It’s hardly clear teaching.
There may be some aspects of PSA that ring true, but it appears that there are some inconsistencies that can only be resolved with convoluted theological theories. It’ sort of like that old joke about the drunk guy looking for his car keys under the street lamp. He didn’t lose them there but the light is better than where he lost them. We’ve got a theory that, at least on paper, clearly ‘works’ so there is no need to shake things up by considering other possibilities.
And apostasy is the turning away from established religion, and perhaps how that religion has filtered scripture. Was Luther an apostate? Sure was. Aren’t you glad?
I don’t see how the story of the drunk guy fits into your argument. But I think the more apt metaphor would be a guy who thinks he lost his keys, so he drives to the park and spends all night looking around in the dark, picking up twigs and bottle caps and testing them in the ignition.
And what do you mean by “on paper, clearly ‘works’”? And is the sole purpose of considering other possibilities to “shake things up”? That’s not the way theology works. And it’s not the way the Gospel works.
Jesus didn’t come to shake things up, he came to change the way we relate to God and each other. Talking about shaking things up just to shake them up sounds more like the Joker than Jesus.
No, I don’t think ’shaking things’ up is a good idea when it comes to theology (although at times it might get people to really think about the things they claim to believe). I was saying that the there seems to be a fear among the orthodox (of any type) of considering different possibilities because it might force them out of their comfort zone.
On paper? Well, one example might be the Calvinist’s TULIP. Very neat and tidy.
I like your take on the drunken metaphor. But let’s take it even farther. Let’s say he actually finds a key that fits his ignition but it’s just a little bit bent. It will turn on all the lights, wipers and radio but won’t start the engine. So he just sits there, comfortable, but stuck.
Nice take on the story. The best part is that it’s true about both sides in a lot of cases.
I’m not big on TULIP, but my only real problem is when people treat it as the key to the Kingdom. It’s got some things right. And I don’t find a lot that’s neat or tidy about it, except for the Perseverance of the saints. The rest is pretty brutal.
Saying something works “on paper” is to contrast it with things that work in practice. Is there some way of testing these theories, so that they become more than that? In my mind, every theological theory only works on paper.
The beauty of Jesus’ work is that we don’t have to figure out what works in practice. Jesus did it once, for all, so that we don’t have any responsibility to recreate it.
Amen.
For all those interested, I’ve continued my Atonement series after a short hiatus from it—TheoPoetic Musings: פֶּסַח And The Ransom Theory Of The Atonement *(Continued) and with that post I finished my thoughts on the Ransom theory. Next, I’ll be looking at the Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement in my post Implications Of The Incarnation To The Atonement.