The Odious Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement

That’s not something that concerns me. The doctrine of justification by faith alone emerged even later than that, and this has no bearing on whether it accurately represents biblical teaching.

One of the reasons it’s easy for liberal Christians like James constantly criticize the beliefs others hold is because others have definable beliefs. It’s not so easy to critique James’s beliefs, because they’re difficult to identify. His primary belief appears to be that he does NOT like the beliefs of fundamentalists.

While discussing the rise of the Nazi Party, Professor Thomas Childers mentioned how one Nazi official (Himmler, I think) was approached by a journalist and asked (paraphrasing) “We know what you are against, but what do you stand for?”, to which the officer responded (paraphrasing), “We are for the opposite of what the current regime stands for”. That seems remarkably similar to James’s liberal Christianity. One might search the archives in vein looking for any positive statement regarding what he believes from a biblical perspective, but there’s plenty of info regarding what he’s against.

Thanks, Claude. Kaz, I do think that it is clear what liberal Christians stand for. The recognition that the religious language that we use is metaphor and symbol rather than a literal description of transcendent realities. An appropriate humility as a result when it comes to the tenacity with which we insist that our own images and language are best. An openness to learning from others who disagree with us. A focus on practical rather than theoretical concerns, such as standing up for the oppressed and working for justice. And I could go on.

Exactly correct Kaz. James just shared with us a statement that defined his Christianity in terms that *any* secular humanist would accept.

Correct, but most Christians assent to a large set of beliefs that atheists would feel comfortable definitively disavowing.

I’ve met plenty of atheists that don’t object to certain Biblical passages being used as “metaphors” to discuss “transcendent” (e.g., moral) reality; provided one admits that they are not to be taken literally.

What are those beliefs that you could definitively state that set you apart from:

* atheists
* non-Christian theists

I’m only asking you to define through distinction because everything you have said could be accepted by some members of the above two groups.

Yeah, I probably had an incorrect definition (or at least equivocated) definition of “transcendent” in mind. For example, many atheists believe there is such a thing as “objective morality” and I was grouping that sort of thing into the category “transcendent.” Sorry about that.

In any event, I still fail to see what firm statements you might make that would differentiate your beliefs from other theistic (especially Abrahamic faiths.)

I’m sure you have such beliefs, I just don’t know what they are. I’m sure if I continue to read I’ll come across some — I only just started reading your blog. But that statement you made above was so general as to be nearly useless in communicating what your version of Christianity entails.

The analogy that is often used on Alpha courses here in the UK is of God the judge having to fulfil the rules and fine you, but that he himself then writes the cheque to pay the fine (I’m paraphrasing).In that version, no one is lopping off anything and it seems to aid thinking about what actually happens in terms of PST in terms of God fulfilling his law himself out of love for us, without involving random innocents, and thereby hopefully avoiding anyone calling anyone else monsterous?

So does any non-anthropomorphic notion of “god”, which you appear to prefer.

I am trying to figure out whether you are agreeing with my point or disagreeing with it. You nowhere used PST’s bookkeeping metaphors, so was your point that the cross is better understood through the other images you used?

Well, there is debate about what ‘omnipotence’ actually includes.

In particular, there’s Euthyphro’s dilemma: do the gods like what’s good because it’s good, or is it good because it’s loved by the gods?

A lot of people, including many Christians of a liberal bent, favour the first horn of the dilemma, and don’t regard this as being a limitation on God’s omnipotence. God, on this view, doesn’t have the option of making kicking puppies for fun good (although of course God could still decide to create or not create puppies).

So people who believe in penal substitution, and who believe God *has* to penally substitute if He wants to let us off (rather than has for some reason decided to do so, even though it isn’t really necessary), are just really choosing the first horn of Euthyphro’s dilemma, alongside many liberal Christians, although of course the content is different.

To motivate why this might not be a real limitation on God’s activity, consider whether an omnipotent God could do the following:
– Can God frubble vork thuub?
– Can God make a five-kilogram constitutional democracy?
– Can God make a triangle with four sides?
– Can God insert the Cookie Monster into the sequence of natural numbers?
– Can God make 1 + 1 = 3 ?
– Can God make a rock so big that God can’t lift it?
– Can God make kicking puppies for fun morally obligatory?

The answer to at least some of these things is surely: “what? I don’t even know what that could possibly mean.”

If pushed, maybe the answer should be: “well, no, God couldn’t make a condition under which that statement is true, because that statement *doesn’t mean anything*!”

and maybe that holds for all of the above.

Furthermore, making the morally good in some sense independent of God means that the traditional property of perfect goodness is a meaningful property to attribute to God. i.e. what God does is just by definition good, asserting “God is good” is an empty statement.

I think we’re kind of on the same page here, at least in the first part of your statement. I didn’t word my last paragraph entirely well: I meant what I think is the same point that you’re making. Thinking that goodness is independent of God in some sense means that “God is good” is a meaningful statement. If you think that goodness is defined by what God does, then you’re not actually telling us anything about God by saying “God is good”

(although I suppose you might be elliptically saying “God is by definition good”, but I don’t think that’s usually what people mean when they say this – while some people opting for that horn seem to have thought this through, most give me the impression of wanting to have their cake and eat it, too).

As far as the last part of your statement goes, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by saying that they’re indistinguishable in practice. It seems to me that they’re very distinguishable. Let’s just take something that would seem to everyone as morally unconscionable if anyone but God did it. Let’s say killing every firstborn (both human and animal) in an entire nation except for those of one ethnic group.

If you’re a straight-up theological voluntarist, then this should be no problem for you whatsoever. Humans aren’t allowed to kill each other because God said so, but God can do whatever he wants, and all of that is by definition good, even if it’s racially-motivated mass murder. If this was done by a human, we’d go ‘boo, you evil person’, but because it’s done by God, we go ‘yay! I’m glad God did that’.

If you think good has an independent definition, then while of course it’s possible to work out that you’re wrong about what is good, you don’t actually have to go along with what God has apparently done in this case. You want (let’s say) to see God as being good, but this action doesn’t appear to be good, so that will be a problem for you, which you will have to work at to accommodate.

These don’t seem like positions that are indistinguishable in practice to me.

OK, but there’s still a difference, isn’t there? someone who believes that good is defined independently of God (and that we have enough of a handle on to know say that mass murder of innocents simply to demonstrate a point is wrong), and who believes God is inherently (and non-degenerately) good has to struggle with accounts of God doing apparently bad things (and with theodicy) in a way a straight-up voluntarist does not.

OK, I always thought the ‘God’s essential nature is good’ people were really embracing option ‘A’. The similarity that they have with option B is that they’ll take all of God’s actions to be good. However, because they have to reconcile God’s actions with a substantive view of the good, they’ll have to do work to explain how it could be good (or as a last resort admit that it’s a mystery).

( I actually think most Christians actually are in this camp, no matter what their official view on Euthyphro’s dilemma are. Even though some people more or less claim to be theological voluntarists, they still seem to want to explain God’s actions in terms of our notions of justice. Very few people really just shrug their shoulders and say “undeserved mass murder? morally unconscionable. Oh, God did it? Oh, sorry, in that case it’s quite fine”. People who think God could do wrong at least in principle also seem pretty thin on the ground. I get the impression that this is more of a possibility in Judaism.)

Apparently you don’t follow this blog very closely, because James has absolutely no problem makes those sorts of comparisons when either Republicans or Conservatives are on the receiving end. Why have you not complained about those posts?

Because I haven’t seen those posts.

Though I follow this blog pretty closely.

Apology accepted. 🙂

So it was humility that motivated James to call the subject belief that many hold “monstrous”. I’m glad you clarified that, because it wouldn’t have occurred to me otherwise.

Try Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp who all affirmed a substitutionary theory. –

“Clement of Rome (c. AD 95-105) wrote, “Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives.”16

Ignatius (c. AD 100-120), writing to the church at Smyrna, taught that Christ was “truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes.” 17 Again he stated, “He suffered all these things for our sakes.”18

Polycarp (c. AD 110-120) explained that it was “Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes, He endured all things, that we might live in
Him.” – quoted from Richard L. Mayhue, Th. D. from The Master’s Seminary Journal – TMSJ 20/2 (Fall 2009) 139-148. – – – http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20f.pdf

Furthermore, the anonymous “Epistle to Diognetus” in the 9th chapter clearly affirms penal substitutionary thought with his “great exchange” statement. It is absolutely, historically false to say that penal substitution was not taught, at least in embryonic form, in the early church. The only reason this argument exists is because of the prevalence of the “Ransom” theories, first developed by Origen (a man I would definitely not want to base my theology on). However, John of Damascus’s corrective to the Ransom theory of Origen was most certainly a step toward an objective, substitutionary theory.

That isn’t what I said, is it? I didn’t say that we shouldn’t *try* to find value, only we that shouldn’t try to pass off speculation as gospel. Please do try to find meaning in it, and please do let me know what you think. Please do not tell me that if I don’t believe a certain doctrine that I cannot be part of the “family” (unless you have VERY good grounds for doing so), which is exactly what many Christians do. As you say, I wonder if Jesus would agree with this as well.

I just posted a comment addressing this notion. You can’t lump people all together like this. I don’t necessarily find PST “monstrous”. Again, the key misunderstanding with many is in thinking of it in terms of God sacrificing *someone else* as substitution. That isn’t what PST claims. Nevertheless, I think there are serious issues with it, and I don’t think anyone really knows what *ultimate* purpose Jesus’ death served, if any. Perhaps, then, we should focus more on his life?

Is there any way to depict as God as both all-loving/merciful and truly just? Seems to me that any atonement theory probably suffers from this dilemma. God simply forgiving people is hardly “just” (and Jesus spoke of how people may perceive God’s way as unjust). Perhaps you feel PST depicts God as more unjust as compared to other concepts of atonement, but it seems to me that ultimately this charge could be leveled at any of them.

http://www.jacksequeira.org/beyond00.htm

It is precisely as a result of studying Hebrews, and the Levitical rituals that are the basis for that work’s metaphors for atonement, that I understand that work to understand the sacrificial blood to be purifying away the sin of human beings to allow God to dwell in the midst of a sinful people. The earthly sacrifice is said to have purified the earthly copies, while Jesus’ sacrifice is said to purify the heavenly originals, allowing him to thus serve as the forerunner who enables humanity to enter God’s heavenly presence.

Gordon Wenham’s commentary on Leviticus is very helpful on this topic.

The key seems to be the disciples of Jesus are perceived as sinners according to the traditional understanding of “God as accuser,” because they followed the soon to be condemned Jesus, and so they fled when Jesus was arrested because they feared for their own lives. Thus, the naked young man was as guilty as naked Adam was before the interrogating eye of God. But the surprise in the story is that the young man is realized to be holy in the end, not just the follower of a condemned criminal. God was not an accuser, but a loving father who sees his children not principally as sinners but as earthly angels.

“apocalyptic“ – can’t spell this early in the morning.

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but by Paul’s time, and especially by Mark’s time, the question must have arisen as to why the end of the age had not come as Jesus predicted. The faithful may have thought society needed to adopt a pious social ethics before God would think them worthy and bring about the end of the age. This would reconcile the seemingly contradictory themes that Mark/Paul had Jesus preach the immediate coming of the end of the age, but with his focus also being on bringing about social ethics/reform.

I’m not sure what your point is? Mark advocating as Jesus’ fundamental dictum the love of God and neighbor certainly doesn’t contradict the fact that there are times when following through on theological mandates is put on the backburner (such as in dire situations).

N.B. Thanks for debating with me Gary. I have no educational background in New Testament studies, but it’s interesting and I enjoy trying my hand at interpretation. One day we’ll have to debate Derrida or Hegel. That’s a little more in my wheelhouse. lol

The way I see it, the issue of “the love of God and neighbor as the greatest commandment” is the key point in Mark. Mark was trying to make sense of Jesus’ apocalyptic message given the fact that Jesus’ prediction didn’t come true. Mark quotes Jesus as saying:

“Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God arrive with power.” (Mark 9:1)

My interpretation is that the original Christians couldn’t accept that Jesus was wrong about this fundamental issue, so they (Paul, Mark, etc) figured the coming kingdom of God was awaiting a worthy people – one that exemplified the core values of love of God and neighbor,

As I said, Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but by Paul’s time, and especially by Mark’s time, the question must have arisen as to why the end of the age had not come as Jesus predicted. The faithful may have thought society needed to adopt a pious social ethics before God would think them worthy and bring about the end of the age. Jesus may have thought this too and just figured this would happen more quickly than it did. As I said, this would reconcile the seemingly contradictory themes that (1) Mark/Paul had Jesus preach the immediate coming of the end of the age, but (2) with the focus also being on bringing about a pious social ethics/reform of God and brotherly love.

The point, Mark 13, 17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! 18 Pray that it may not be in winter. 19 For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days.

The obvious question, if God was reciprocal in love of man and neighbor, why not just prevent the suffering, instead of waiting to “cut short those days”. The obvious answer, the time of authorship was already seeing Jerusalem under siege, probably people in the city starving, and no amount of “love thy neighbor” was going to save them.

“Why would love of God and neighbor be such a focal point for the Christian message if everything was just about to end anyway?”…

The so-called “Peaceable Kingdom” is suppose to come when we’re dead! Why else would the Christian martyrs want to jump into the lion’s den – knowing they’re not Daniel-like.

Trying to sneak in the last word? lol

Paul gives us some good hints about what the Christian view of “Love” was in the early Christian churches. For instance, Paul says:

(1) “Love must be sincere. Detest what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Outdo yourselves in honoring one another. (Romans 12:10).”

(2) “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).”

One last thought (since you’re giving me the last thought, lol)

Gary said:

From the author of Mark’s standpoint, love of God, love of neighbor, is nothing different than Deuteronomy, Reformation of Josiah, and Jeremiah from centuries before. Jewish and Christian religions the same.

I really enjoyed talking about these ideas of love in Mark, Paul, and the Hebrew scriptures with you. I think your paralogism here is that you are assuming that because an author like Mark is alluding to a prior “Type,” that the author is simply regurgitating what is implied in the “Type.” But often in biblical hermeneutics, as I think is the understanding of the case of Love in Paul and Mark, there seems to be an evolution of the concept beyond what we see in certain places in the Hebrew scriptures. It’s like when Matthew shapes his narrative to portray Jesus as the New Moses. It is not that Jesus is just recapitulating what is found in the story of Moses, but rather Jesus is understood by Matthew as the New and Greater Moses.

So, Mark may have a concept of love related to Deuteronomy, Reformation of Josiah, and Jeremiah from centuries before. However, perhaps the early Christians also innovated beyond this.

To take a related example, the Christian notion of agape is reminiscent of the Jewish idea of hesed, but agape can’t really be delineated and characterized simply by looking to prior Hebrew scripture “Types.” As one scholar characterizes the Christian notion of agape (love):

First, agape is said to be a love that God has for humankind in general: “For God so loved the world, he gave his only Son” (John 3:16). Thus, the term differs from hesed in that it does not refer to a love already promised to a specific group of people.

Second, this term is used not just of God’s love for us but also for the human response to this love and can be used for love shared and expressed between human beings (John 21:15, where Jesus asks Peter, “Do you love [agapas] me, more than [you love] these [others]?”). Sometimes agape seems virtually interchangeable with philos. In Matthew 5:43, agape is used to refer to love of neighbor; in Matthew 5:44, quoted above, it is even used to refer to love of enemy. The latter passage makes it very clear that agape is not just a covenant love owed to a particular person or group with whom one is in a committed relationship. No, agape often refers to a more unconditional, even self-sacrificial love. It goes well beyond “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Which brings us to the most misused passages of all: 1 Corinthians 13, one of the all-time wedding favorites: “Love (Agape) is patient, love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude …” Despite its popularity at weddings, 1 Corinthians 13 has nothing to do with marital love. It is rather Paul’s instruction to all Christians on “the more excellent way” in which they should exercise their spiritual gifts. It is part of a discussion that begins in 1 Corinthians 12:1 (“Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed”) and continues through 1 Corinthians 14:40. Agape here is the love all Christians should exhibit as they prayerfully and carefully use the gifts God has given them. I recall Professor Victor P. Furnish of Southern Methodist University once saying that agape, whether divine or human, is not like a heat-seeking missile, prompted by something inherently warm or attractive in the “target” audience. It is that sort of other-regarding and self-sacrificial love that John 3:16 (another wedding favorite) says characterizes God, and that should characterize all human beings in their response to God and to others: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.”

First Corinthians 13 is about precisely this sort of love, not marital love, and, as has often been noted, this sort of love has nothing to do with attractiveness or attraction. It is often bestowed on the unloved and the unlovely. It is an expression of grace, which means undeserved and unmerited benefit or favor bestowed on someone. In a world of reciprocity, and “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours,” such love seems to break the cycle of payback, and reaches a person as a true gift, one that comes without strings attached. This is the greater agape the Bible refers to, and it is surely no exaggeration to say that it is a love humans are not capable of apart from divine example, assistance and enablement.

So, I think this gives us a better Idea about the issue of love in the New Testament.

I’m not saying your interpretation doesn’t hold weight. Just a different interpretation. Maybe you are right. Maybe there are different layers. I don’t know.
But, maybe, my guess is that the destruction of Jerusalem may have validated the teaching of Jesus. An unknown apocalyptic preacher in Paul’s time, preaching love. But with the destruction of Jerusalem, all of a sudden people took note, and said, “maybe there is something in his preaching. Time to jump on the bandwagon, and wait for the ultimate new kingdom. If Jerusalem hadn’t been destroyed, I think all the Jews and Gentiles would have forgotten about Jesus, and his “love thy neighbor” stuff. Realistically, there was no social change for the better, for what, maybe a couple thousand years. I’d say the prediction of the destruction, was better than the prediction of love.

John, I’ll let you have the last word (since our discussions seem to last too long), after this one comment. I remember the Twilight Zone episode, where an alien (big dude), landed, and wanted to help us out, and gave mankind a book entitled “To Serve Man”. When we finally translated the contents of the book, it turned out to be a cookbook. Or, “The meek shall inherit the earth”, meaning they will get 6 feet of dirt over them when they get buried.

Mark 12:28-34 says love of God and neighbor was the MOST IMPORTANT of all the commandments, which shifts the focus of religious life away from the Hebrew scripture emphasis on the endless cycle of sin/animal sacrifice, so Mark certainly seems to think this “Greatest Commandment” is central to his narrative.