On Atonement Part I: Statement of the Problem

As the title of my post indicates, I've been thinking a lot about atonement. I've come to the point where I have a position I can begin to articulate, and it also demonstrates some of how my mind tends to work in interpreting Scripture, and why I think I'll prefer theology to biblical studies. So any interaction and criticism will be appreciated greatly.

At the very least I think the Bible claims that Jesus, uniquely the Son of God, lived without sin, died, and was resurrected, and that now somehow because of this all men can be saved. But the question is, how does that happen? In what way are we to understand what happened at the cross? The Bible uses many different pictures and kinds of language when talking about the atonement, so its hard to sift through it all.

I am convinced that deciding on how to understand this requires some spiritual and ethical engagement on the part of the readers. I don't think the text will "interpret itself" as it were. We have to make decisions about which verses or concepts are going to frame which other ones. For guidance in doing this we can look to tradition, reason, prayer, and conversation. At the end of the day, our conclusions can never claim the authority of the story itself. With that in mind, here is my attempt.

In this first post, I'll try to sum up what penal substitution means, what my problems with it are, and hint in each section what a better theory might look like. In the second post, I'll try to sum up some other atonement theories as I understand them, and articulate the theory I more or less subscribe to as best I can. And in the third post, I'll try to argue that the theory I set out in the second post meets the criteria for what a better theory would look like.

Penal Substitution: What's the deal with that?

I grew up with what I gather to be the position most conservative protestant churches take, and that is what is often called "penal substitution." That is to say, man sinned, and sin requires a serious punishment. Some people would say that sin also caused man to be fallen, and therefore we couldn't repent, others would say even if we did really repent, we still warrant the punishment of Hell. Only a perfect sacrifice could atone for sin against an infinitely good God, and no man could provide that sacrifice. So God sent His Son to be that sacrifice. Jesus lived a perfect life and the willingly became the scapegoat for God's wrath thereby opening up the Way for humanity to be saved. All we have to do is place our faith in Him.

This interpretation seems to me to start with a picture of God's justice, grounded in a reading of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, messianic language from Isaiah in particular, and then interpreting Jesus in light of those things. This probably isn't a bad way to go about it, since the NT writers appeal to the ritual sacrifices and messianic prophecies in talking about what Jesus accomplished. But nonetheless there are a few things that bug me.

Innocents Being Punished: Moral Asset or Liability?

One question that has bugged for a long time is this one: how on earth (or in heaven) does it satisfy justice for an innocent person to be punished for my sins? It seems to me it is quite the opposite of justice. Forgive me for putting it in economic, but if we had a negative balance, shouldn't the horrific torture and murder of an innocent man (even a willing man) merely increase that negative balance?

What kind of judge would say justice had been served just because someone was punished? If the man on trial is found innocent, aren't we supposed to let him go free? What if the innocent man said, "I didn't do it, but just punish me and stop looking for the real killer. Justice will have been served!" It doesn't make any sense in any other arena I can think of.

Now I know God is a perfect judge, omnipotent, omniscient, sovreign, and the source of all Good. So I know I can't judge God, and I suppose this provides an "out" in a manner of speaking. It is possible that there is some way in which the punishment of a willing innocent substitute satisfies justice but only when God does it, and in a way that is just beyond my limited ethical sense.

But I think an understanding that made sense of Jesus having to go to the cross without requiring this ad hoc appeal to God's "omni" qualities would be better.

Forgiveness and Innocent Blood: Two Peas in a Pod, or the Odd Couple?

Another scripture people will quote in favor of substitution is this one: "There can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood." But, I still ask, why? Why is there no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood? It is here that I think the person defending penal substitution as the best way of understanding atonement has to just say "because the Bible says so." Touche.

I suppose this way of thinking is internally consistent, but I would argue that an understanding that made sense of this question would be better. And I think the way towards that would be to imagine that perhaps forgiveness of sins and the shedding of blood are only linked in fact and not in essence, or even by some mystical decree of God. Maybe this statement is descriptive rather than normative.

The last thing I'll say about it is this: it seems to me this concept of justice is being framed by the Old Testament sacrificial system. Why not try framing justice in terms of Jesus, and interpret the Old Testament sacrificial system in light of that?

"The First Law of Wrath-o-dynamics?" or, "Is wrath a conserved quantity?"

Another line of defence is the idea that God is Just, so therefore He must punish wrongdoing. Of course, this is true, but what do we mean by it? Proponents of substitution generally mean retribuitive punishment. This is the way they understand wrath. This "wrath" doesn't just disappear, it has to be vented or poured out.

But isn't this contrary to much of what we are taught about how to love? "Love keeps no record of wrongs" and "Forgive us... for we also forgive those who sin against us" come to mind. Jesus told Peter to forgive "not seven, but seven times seven times." (What if Jesus had said, forgive him as many times as he will let you strike him!)

We also know that God is "slow to anger, abounding in love" and "does not take delight in the death of the wicked" and forgives quickly when a sinner repents. Over and over, God forgives people when they repent and ask forgiveness, and He requires us to do the same, and even to forgive those who have not even asked to be forgiven.

Many would point to the fact that "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." But does this mean that the idea of hurting people because they hurt you is basically sound, its just that only God is Good enough to do so? Was Jesus' point with the woman caught in adultery really "if only all of you were sinless, then you could stone this woman rightfully"? Are we supposed to love our enemies because we know God's going to get 'em better than we would in the end? I seriously don't think so.

Could it be more like a parent telling their child "I'll worry about what's fair" when that child wants to hit back their sibling who hit them first, because its "fair"? In this case, the parent probably doesn't ever mean to exact "fairness" in the sense the child means, just as Jesus never intended for anyone to stone the woman. They probably mean to take the weapon of "fairness" out of that child's hands, hoping that eventually they will realize how foolish their concept of fairness really was. Maybe when God claims vengeance for Himself, he's merely taking a weapon out of our hands, not really ever intending to use it the way we thought.

I'd guess that most people who defend penal substitution this way are not vengeful people hoping for God to torture their enemies for eternity. I think we are just searching for a way to understand what happened at the cross, and perhaps also to make sense of Hell, and all those wars in the Old Testament where God told the Israelites to kill all the heathen. These are incredibly difficult questions for any honest person to deal with, so I respect those who are able to hold this picture of God in tension with His Love and Mercy.

But again! If we could find a way of understanding how the cross accomplishes our atonement that is equally faithful to the scriptures but doesn't necessitate a God who never forgives unless he gets to hit someone, then I think that would be better.

Towards Another Theory

In sum: what I hope to point towards is a theory of atonement that is faithful to the scriptures and makes some sense of Jesus' work on the cross without requiring that A) God hold it just to punish an innocent man for punishment's sake, B) shedding of blood be tied to forgiveness in an essential or de jure way, or C) wrath be a completely conserved quantity of anger that God must dump out before He can forgive.

That's a lot to pull off, but my disclaimer is in the phrase "hope to point to." So please comment, and stay tuned for my next post: "On Atonement Part II: Another Theory, and Other Theories"!