Attacking the atonement from the other side?

Wink over at Parableman seems to be keen to reject the notion of “substitution”. Unlike some neoliberals he does accept that there is a punishment element to the cross. However he emphasises the verses that speak of our union with Christ in his death.

Unfortunately attacking the notion of the atonement from this other side still has the same effect- ie the whole eddifice of evangelical doctrine comes tumbling down. You see he states “In Penal Union, it is true that we do not escape punishment”

Personally I cannot accept that there is any sense in which we share in Christs punishment- Jesus really did die for me and instead of me.

I do believe that we are united with Christ in his death, but we remain distinct from him. Thus our unity in being crucified with him is a reality but that reality extends to certain things and not others. Thus the bible is clear that there are other benefits to the cross than merely getting off the hook of punishment. Jesus reconciles us to God on the cross, and yes that is a valid aspect to what the atonement is all about and yest I would say we in some way participate in that for as we see the cross and identify with the Christ of the cross that very identification and mystical union with Christ is what grants us reconciliation.

Through the bond of unity certain things flow from us to Christ however without in fact any sense of us participating in that actively or having any real roll to play apart from to trust it has happened. Our sins are taken from us and pass through our bond of union to Christ who accepts them willingly to the point that he BECOMES sin. Then our sins are punished in his body on the cross.

Similarly from Christ to us flows his righteousness. We not only get let off the hook and are not punished, we actually become righteous in the same way Christ became sin. But do we earn that righteousness? Of course we don’t, and I do not believe we earn our right to be released from punishment either.

Look, let me put it this way. I do think Wink is onto something in wanting to emphasise our union with Christ in his death- and his quotes are clearly biblical. But going slightly beyond what the bible actually clearly says (but perhaps not too far and by way of an explanation this does seem reasonable) would it not be possible to state the following-

Although we are united with Christ in his death, we are united much in the same way a soldier would be with his armor. Christ acts as a perfect shield, hiding us from the wrath and punishment of God so that we do not feel a hint even of divine displeasure. Our sins are transferred to him and then in a way in which we do not in any sense participate.

Jesus bears my debts. He dies in my place like a broken shield that stopped an arrow killing its owner. At the same time amazingly I become united with him so all the positive benefits of the cross flow to me- I become “dead to sin” , reconciled with God and his righteousness flows along the same channel of unity back to me so that I become someone who is a partaker of God. In many ways this is the symbol of the Lords supper. I come hungry and thirsty with no more to offer than an empty cup and plate. Jesus comes and breaks bread sharing this with me and pours out his blood for me to take into myself and share and become more one with him than blood brothers will ever be.

I hope the above gives due justice to both the participatory AND substitutionary aspects to the atonement but I am sure there is more others could contribute!

I quoted Romans over at parableman as follows-

Romans 3 states “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

To me the key phrases here are “as a gift”- if we have in some way shared in Christs punishment how can it still be a gift? The word propitiation I have always understoon means turning away wrath which to my mind at least implies substitution. But most of all the condition of the receivers is described simply as one of faith not as those who also receive the punishment they deserve. If we share in Christs punishment just what gospel is left?

I am not 100% sure I fully understand Wink however (which was why I held off commenting). Still if I have misrepresented his position he can of course correct me. But I cannot understand how he could possibly avoid the following verses-

Is 53 also says-

Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned every one to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

There is no doubt here in mind that substitution in terms of punishment is REQUIRED by these verses. Wink’s view (as I have understood it at least) would need the verse to read something like this-

Surely he has helped us to carry our griefs

and shared our sorrows;

yet we were stricken with him,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 We were wounded for our transgressions;

and crushed for our iniquities;

upon us both was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and becuase we also felt his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned every one to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him and us together

the iniquity of us all.