No penalty, no atonement

When asked my own religious adherence, my stock response is 'Church of England'. This means everything and nothing, and my interrogators always know exactly what I mean. I've never yet come across anyone who did not think that it was possibly to believe more or less what you want to in the esablished Church. Still, until relatively recently it has been understood that the clergy, at the very least, should more or less follow an orthodox line. So the question I am now asking myself is, are the views of the Dean of St Albans, Jeffrey John, orthodox or not? Substitutionary atonement, penal atonement, call it what you may, it is still pretty incomprehensible to the average person in the pew. Lots of links to this story on Thinking Anglicans.

Yesterday I was in a neo-Gothic church, sitting almost directly underneath a 12-foot mahogany cross, a carved sculpture of an agonised Christ nailed on to it. Behind me was a non-Christian friend. 'What's that on the cross?' she asked. I didn't know what to say. A body? For a moment, in the most inappropriate circumstances possible, I was gripped by an almost overwhelming compulsion to make that tasteless joke about the woman who wanders into a jewellery shop. If you don't know the joke, now is not the time to repeat it. Thank whatever God there is, I managed to resist the temptation and lowered my gaze from the spectral mahogany effigy to see the cross my friend had really been talking about. On it was a large, bushy, palm from Palm Sunday. It did indeed look odd. How are we expected to explain these strange and appalling images to people visiting churches for perhaps the first time?

Since the post of Bishop of Reading was snatched from him in the most unfortunate circumstances possibly, I have always felt sorry for Dr John. Also, I have shared the views of many that perhaps, given Rowan Williams' previous statements, as summarised in a recent document from SPREAD, it might have been better all around if he had remained faithful to these original principles and not sacrificed them for the sake of unity. Especially if, as looks increasingly likely, the whole shebang is going to fall apart anyway.

But now Dr Williams is undergoing his own form of 'penal atonement' as it were, the propagation of the Spread document by David Virtue being just one of the nails in the cross he has to bear. And I can't help wondering, unless I am getting it all terribly wrong, whether he perhaps wasn't right to have doubts after all about Dr John, not because of his sexuality, for perfectly sound theological reasons. One thing Dr Williams understands perhaps better than any of us is how the atonement doctrine actually works.

Dr John said the church’s traditional Easter message that Christ was sent to earth to die for the sins of mankind made God sound like a “psychopath.” He said the traditional view of the event was repulsive, nonsensical and insane. He said the importance of the crucifixion was that God through Christ experienced human suffering. He went on: “Even at the age of ten I thought this traditional explanation was pretty repulsive and nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own son. And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster.” He didn't refute that Christ died for humanity’s sins. “It’s about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins, the price of our sin is paid, but it is not paid to God, but by God.” He rejected the notion that Christ’s death assuaged God’s anger at the sins of humanity.

Some early reaction came from Spring Harvest, where Bishops Pete Broadbent and Wallace Benn said he'd got it wrong: 'You cannot read the Old Testament and New Testament .. and blank out an entirety of language and concept and understanding that means that we are guilty sinners, we need our sins to be paid for and we need Jesus Christ to die for us. That is what the Creeds say, it is what the Bible says and you cannot rewrite them. You cannot understand Jesus Christ without understanding Old Testament atonement material.'

Acknowledging that arguments over the precise nature of the atonement have caused dissension in the Church recently, they continued: 'Of course there are some very raw discussions amongst Christians about quite how Jesus died in our place and what that meant and how He suffered for our sins – but to ignore the entirety of the language about atonement and sacrifice and the cross is to nullify the message of what Good Friday and Jesus dying for us is all about. Jesus Christ is sacrificed and he washes away the sins of the whole world and he completes the understanding of Scripture and fulfils it in a completely new way.’

Anglican Mainstream developed an article first published in Radical Discipleship (Marshalls, 1981, pp 47-52).

'The defeat of evil

'Before people can repent, before they can look to the interests of others, before they can be freed from the powers, before the new society can be formed, evil must be defeated and its power over the world broken. The cross and resurrection of Jesus is the focus of that defeat... We must not isolate Jesus’ sufferings from the whole event of his ministry, death and resurrection. They were the birth pangs of the kingdom, the sufferings of the servant appointed to bring God’s people under his rule. His sufferings were rooted in everyday life. He lived the life of obedience to God that God’s rebellious people refused to give. His crucifixion was the price of his non-conformity, his resistance to injustice among the people of God. His message was the message of the prophets against idolatry and injustice, and his fate was the same (Mark 12.1-12)...

'All aspects of Jesus’ suffering have important theological implications. The cross is the defeat of evil and the price of sin. It frees people from the guilt and power of rebellion against God, setting evil’s captives free to be resistance workers. Membership of the kingdom of God is open to his enemies. The price of rebellion has been paid. Those who identify themselves with Jesus under God’s curse on the cross find they are now identified with Jesus in the risen life of the kingdom. They are now free from the powers of sin and death to live the life of the new age.

'Radical discipleship sees in the cross not only the price of the conquest of evil, but also the method. The cross is the centre of history. It is here that the two realities of history meet, the old age and the new, the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light.  The sufferings of the forerunner of the new age are the very path of victory.'

I've never really understood want radical discipleship meant, but I have a friend, one of the most serious sinners I know, who often talks in terms of 'radical forgiveness'. What would Dr John's theology be? Radical atonement? And I still don't know what I would say to anyone who really did ask me, 'What is that body doing on the cross?'

Comments

[Theodore A. Jones]

Wow weeee. I've been saying for years that the idea that Jesus crucifixion was not in anybody's place nor has his death paid the price of a penalty like we pay a fine. But this does not mean that I also think the crucifixion of Jesus has not perfected the way for sin's penalty to be escaped from. So let me explain this to you all.
The crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed and it is this sin that Jesus says the whole world is guilty of regarding the sin of crucifying him. For by crucifying him and causing him to loose his life by bloodshed he has become the sin any man can willingly repent of directly to God for the forgiveness of ALL sins. This is the small narrow gate to God that Jesus perfected by being crucified. All you need to do is have the faith to use it. Since God demands an accounting for taking a man's life by bloodshed Jesus authored the message of the only Way to become one with God and his apostles preached at Pentecost to teach the Way to account for the sin of Jesus murder. Moses even spoke about this saying "Keeping the law, its easy. Its in your mouth." What is it to hard for you to have faith enough to say to God that you are sorry Jesus was crucified to be forgiven of ALL sins?
Theodore A. Jones

[Adrian Warnock]

I have written about how a major rift has opened in evangelicalism about this issue - Spring Harvest and UCCF have split. (see the link)

[Alan Marsh]

John, in rejecting the imagery of the law courts you explicitly set aside the very argument which Paul makes in Romans about the nature of the cross, which is the substitution of Jesus, the innocent Lamb of God, for those who should be paying the penalty for their sins - us sinners.

By all means reject your own caricature - a supposed "ultra-calvinist" model, or the caricature posed by Dr John, which he feels free to describe in such unpleasant terms.

But if you set aside the temple theology of atonement, which is the penal and substitutionary model prevailing in the time of Jesus and for centuries prior to that; together with Paul's forensic analysis in Romans, which demonstrates how Jesus takes away our sins by way of an atonement offering which pays the price of our offences; there is little left that can be described as the biblical model - only what you have decided, a priori, that you want to believe.

Sadly, this appears to be Dr John's theological method. It is not however either Catholic or Evangelical, or in any sense biblical.

[David Palmer]

Dear John,

Maybe we should continue this discussion over a nice bottle of Australian Chardonnay or New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc, if only.

In the meantime let us say it was good to lunge and parry a few sword thrusts together. I remain a Gunn at heart, “aut pax aut bellum” - I do love my Reformation heritage.

Thank you too, Ruth for introducing us

David

[rhys lewis]

What strikes me about Jeffery John's comments is that he must have known how deeply offensive they would be, in Holy Week, to very large numbers of Christians.
Was this kind - was it the time to say it - was it likely to change anyone's mind? In fact his own account of the matter is one that a believer in penal atonement could incorporate into their understanding of atonement. Instead of widening the discussion and including people, his intemperate opening remarks have muddied the waters further.

[John]

David,
The problem is when peole confuse "atonement" with "penal substitution". The difference is absolutely essential to be clear about. We must accept that, in the Incarnation, God reconciled humanity to Himself and Himself to humanity. Any more than that is not required - the ways in which that reconciliation has been understood are many and varied. What troubles me is when one particular formulation of one approach to understanding this (penal substitution) becomes required belief. This is what seems to be happening - anyone (like Dean John) who questions even crude understandings of penal substitution becomes vilified!

And, yes, what he discussed is a caricature - or, at least, an extreme version - of penal substitution. Unfortunately, it is genuinely the position taught by a great many churches, especially in the USA but also over here. As Dean John pointed out from his own experiences (telling stories about both his own family and a priest he's known since becoming adult), the views that he's rejecting are not abstract caricatures but real beliefs that are crippling people in their journey of faith. If such a view (admittedly extreme) is being forced on people as required by the Christian faith, what are we to do? Must we not, as Dean John and others have done, point out the error and show that there are other paths to understanding the great work that God has done in Christ Jesus?

The question of definitions is crucial. Yes, we have different understandings of "penal substitution". However, it seems to me that, like many others here and at least initially, you were thinking that "penal substitution" included all those beliefs necessary for orthodoxy and hence that anyone who rejected it must be outside orthodoxy. As you say, "It is good in opposing a particular viewpoint to actually start by defining it in the terms that those adhering to it, use regarding it." Thus, here, when discussing what Dean John has said, it is crucial to understand what _HE_ means by "penal substitution" and the divine punishment model he discussed. To assume that he means more than he does will simply make sure that we don't address the actual issue.

As you said, when you read what Dean John wrote, it is absolutely clear that he is defending orthodox substitutionary atonement. He doesn't step even slightly outside that box - despite the fact that there are genuinely biblical understandings of the atonement that aren't substitutionary. Railing against him as some have done for rejecting substitution is simply to miss the point. Unless we address the issue he is addressing, we're spouting hot air.

Now, as you say, you might see his description as a caricature. But when it is a real view, held by real people, it's no longer simply a caricature but a description of views he has encountered. If they don't include you, that means nothing more than that he's not criticising your views of the atonement! We needn't feel threatened when someone criticises views that we don't hold. But, because of the knee-jerk response that penal substitution holds in some minds, some people feel threatened nonetheless. They seem to feel that if the arrow strikes a target in the same field, that's still too close to them, even if they're nowhere near the target in question.

Your closing paragraph assumes that he's unorthodox. You therefore assume that his meaning is unorthodox and wrong - and use this wrongness to deduce that Dean John is unorthodox! It is, however, more than probable that the paragraph should be more like this (trying to keep as close as possible to what you wrote):

"Maybe Jeffrey John is so aware of his own sin that the blinkers of the ultra-Calvinist Christianity of his youth show him only God the Judge who punishes, whereas, as an orthodox Christian who understands the profession of his faith (eg Romans 10:9), he knows that his sins have been borne by Christ who overcame death, hell and the devil in His life, death and resurrection?"

pax et bonum

[John]

Alan,
You're still not hearing me. Sacrifice has nothing to do with penal substitution proper. _Penal_ substitution deals with ideas of law and punishment, not temple sacrifice. These are quite distinct.

What I've been saying, repeatedly, is that if we base our ideas on the law courts only (or, indeed, on any single metaphor), we will misunderstand both what Jesus did in His life, death and resurrection, and how He did it. What Dean John did was point out the weakness in ONE PARTICULAR MODEL of the atonement, in which God the Father is seen as inflicting heinous punishment on an entirely innocent Son. There is a genuine moral problem here that must be addressed - even if we do as Luther did and simply declare it a non-issue.

Please, read what Dean John actually wrote. The entire point is that he is looking at how we can see Christ's death as substitution _without_ having to see it as "illogical" or "insane", or to make God seem like a "psychopath" or a "monster". Because there really are a lot of people and churches out there whose theology (at least, the one they claim to hold, if not its actual outworking) has this effect. Don't imagine that Dean John is talking about _your_ understanding of substitution unless you really do agree with the positions he's denying.

And this is what is annoying me about this comment thread - lots of people essentially agreeing with what Dean John said (by showing that they themselves reject such abusive models) and then condemning as a heretic for doing so. The sole reason seems to be a feeling that he must have done something wrong because he's denying ultra-Calvinism! This is very strange to me. Why vilify someone because you agree with them?

What, exactly, are people so annoyed with him about? You all seem actually to agree with the points he was making!

pax et bonum

[Chris Gillibrand]

First and foremost, a Happy Easter to one and all.

These matters were discussed first and more fully by St Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. (see especially Art 3 but also the full context in Questions prior and post Question 47).

If the works of St Thomas had been on the curriculum of Anglican theology colleges, we all might have been saved from the public theological agonising of prominent Anglican clerics over the last decades.

[David Palmer]

Ruth,

Goodness, see what you have got us into!

John,
I think you are in the business of not accepting my definition of penal substitution which I believe to be a perfectly good one and submitting your own definition which as one who has lived with the doctrine for more than 40 years, I find to be a caricature. It is good in opposing a particular viewpoint to actually start by defining it in the terms that those adhering to it, use regarding it.

I am perfectly happy to associate with “substitutionary atonement”, adding “with penal aspects to it”. Both of us understand there is an incredible richness to the Biblical record of Christ’s atoning work. You have mentioned several and I too affirm redemption, ransom, reconciliation, justification, effecting the new covenant, Christ the victor, the self offering of Himself as a sacrifice, friendship with God and so on.

You were correct to point me back to Jeffrey John’s talk which I have now read. Again I see a send up, a caricature of common evangelical, confessional understanding. Does an earthly father who punishes his children for wrongdoing need to be “a nasty, angry (f)ather…” If not an earthly father then surely not God (John 3:16)! As earthly fathers love yet punish wrongdoing (and we do not fault them for that) so why not God, in whose image we are made? I wouldn’t be quoting Julian of Norwich – she got it badly wrong.

Jeffrey John, it seems to me gets things half right, half wrong: the penalty is paid to God by God, with the Son never separated from the love of His Father and yet we can never forget the burden of our sin led to that awful cry of dereliction.

Maybe Jeffrey John is so bothered by his own sin that with the spectacles of the orthodox Christianity of his youth (allowing for some crassness in its expression) he can only see God a Judge who punishes whereas the orthodox Christian who understands in the profession of his faith (eg Romans 10:9) that his/her sins have been laid upon the sin bearer, can only see the love of God?

[Alan Marsh]

John, I too could recommend a number of books. I suggest you start with Godfrey Ashby's little treatise on Sacrifice which will explains with the way in which sacrifice and atonement effected remission of sins by the substitution of a blood sacrifice.

You keep asserting that penal substitution is a late development in Christian history, but in the theology of temple sacrifice it actually predates the Cross. It seems to me that you are misrepresenting the doctrine in order to deny its biblical foundations.

Paul makes extensive use of forensic images and terminology in Romans, so that redemption is not about economic slavery, as you claim, but about paying the price of sin - which is death.

The expiation is accomplished by the shedding of blood, as Hebrews so clearly emphasises, with the result that God's righteousness is upheld, while passing over the sentence which was formerly due to be paid.

It would be anachronistic to demand of St Paul or the OT writers that they use the modern terminology of "penal substitution" (which is itself merely shorthand for a much more complex set of ideas) but the concept is firmly biblical and is at the heart of St Paul's understanding of the kind of transaction which took place on Good Friday.

What seems to me to be really happening here is the use by Dr John of some remarkably violent language, in a very public arena (a BBC broadcast) as a means of causing offence to evangelical Christians in some kind of party spirit. It is wholly inappropriate behaviour, but I have yet to hear of any rebuke being issued by those who hold authority in the Church of England.

[John]

Alan,
To address the verses you quote:
"the redemptiom which is in Christ Jesus" = economic slavery model;
"expiation by His blood" = sacrifice or scapegoat model (both very different, by the way).
These are the only 2 phrases that I can see that address the _mechanism_ of how the atonement works in that quotation. There is no mention there of justice or the lawcourt - only of "falling short of the glory of God", which is certainly not legal language!

Paul does use legal language, but he does not teach the doctrine of penal substitution. That didn't really arrive until the time of the Reformers, although similar ideas had been around for a while (Anselm's is often claimed as a proto-penal model, although it's not full-blown penal substitution).

Once more, penal substitution is NOT the idea that Jesus died in our place, or that we have sinned and need redemption, or that God reached out to an undeserving world. Penal substitution is a description of the _mechanism_ by which Christ's death achieved forgiveness of sins. There are others - and ones with better biblical basis. Such as the slave market, the temple, the scapegoat.

If anyone's wondering what some of these models are, or just wondering what I'm on about with these distinctions, I can recommend the little book "Problems with Atonement" by Stephen Finlan (it's about 130 pages). It's a discussion of how to read the Bible (OT and NT) when it talks about atonement - how Jews and other cultures viewed the meanings of sacrifices and of exclusion rituals (such as the scapegoat). He discusses Paul's imagery and shows how he splendidly mixed metaphors all the time. If we fail to see how these metaphors are mixed, we misapply the ideas from one image in the context of another - leading to confusion at best, error at worst.

There's nothing wrong with using the lawcourt as an image of how the atonement works. But it misses large portions of what's going on - we also need other images. The same is true of all metaphors. Provided we remember that no one model contains all truth and that all need some correction, we'll be fine. That is all that Dean John was doing - pointing out flaws in penal substitution (the specific model) and how other ideas are more clearly taught in the Bible.

pax et bonum

[Norman McIlwain]

I would like to add my comment on the matter of substitution:

Jesus tasted death for everyone, but death is not what Jesus paid on our behalf - we all die. What is important is what He gave - His life. Jesus paid the debt of righteousness - which is our due, that we who are at one with Him should be accepted along with Him. The Lord's cry, 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me' was an utterance made for our sakes that declared both His innocence and the injustice of the cross. The abandonment was only physical. The Father accepted the fragrant offering and sacrifice that Jesus made of His life at the cross (Eph.5:1-2). As it is written, God did not turn away: 'For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; but when He cried to Him, He heard' (Psalm 22:24, NKJ). Jesus was the Righteous Servant offering His life to God for us in perfect obedience to the Father's will. Now, in Christ, being at one in Him through the gift of the Holy Spirit, His offering is accounted for us as a covering of righteousness. By our faith in Christ, we are forgiven our past debts and declared righteous. Jesus is the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS - and it is by His 'life' we are saved (Rom.5:10).

What kind of judge would knowingly sentence an innocent person to death? It is only the law of the unmerciful that immutably applies punishment for every crime. If a person truly repents, he should be forgiven. This is the Law of God (Luke 17:4; Mat.6:14-15). To punish Jesus in our place would require God to acquit the guilty and to condemn the innocent - to do that which He hates (Prov.17:15). It would require God acting contrary to His stated desire to forgive. What hardness of heart can be instilled into the mind by the teaching that God does not remove punishment when one repents, but merely transfers it? The doctrine of penal substitution asks us to believe that the Father declared His own Son guilty of sin and worthy of death in agreement with His Son’s false accusers. No. The law of God releases the repentant from punishment – not by transferring it to someone else, but through the godly act of forgiveness. To knowingly pass sentence upon a holy and righteous person for crimes committed by others would be to act without justice. We know this is true. The punishment of Jesus cannot be justified under God’s Law. God’s justice had been removed. The accusations, the sentence, His punishment and His crucifixion were all acts of injustice according to a worldly court – overturned by God, as revealed through the resurrection of Christ to heavenly glory. The price He paid was that of His righteous life, sufficient to cover the debts of all who repent. We, if we are Christ’s, are covered by His righteousness!

Blessings!

Norman

(PS: A response to comments made by the authors of the book 'Pierced For Our Transgressions' can be found @ http://www.bible-study-online.org)

[Alan Marsh]

John, the early chapters of Romans employ a great deal of legal terminology of the kind you are looking for.

For example, Romans 3.23-25 says:

since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,they are
justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation 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.

The meaning of this is that the requirements of the divine justice have been met by God himself, in the person of Jesus, who made atonement by the sacrificial offering of his blood. Although we have sinned, God passes over our sins because of our faith in his gift of grace.

This is a biblical definition of what happened on the cross - someone else, the Son of God, bearing in his own body the punishment deserved by sinners ("the wages of sin is death", Rom.6.23), a substitute suffering the penalty on behalf of others.

It is not a modern invention, or the property of conservative evangelicals - it is the New Testament itself.

[John]

David,
I'm trying to ensure that people are careful over terms. "Penal substitution" isn't synonymous with "God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin." What you describe there is substitutionary atonement, not _penal_ substitution. The addition of "penal" is crucial and describes one particular way of understanding how that substitution works. The Bible uses many models, including seeing Jesus as priest and victim in a sacrifice (temple model), or seeing Jesus as buying us out of slavery (redemption model). In penal substitution, we envision God the Father as the judge in the divine court, passing sentence on us for our sin (which is here synonymous with law-breaking). God is also our chief prosecutor, demanding our condemnation (because of His innate justice). However, instead of condemning us, God decides to place Jesus as proxy defendant, and to carry out sentence on Him instead (Jesus being God, this is usually not seen as compulsory, but is sometimes described that way). By this legal trick, we avoid the due punishment for our sin.

This mechanism is what Dean John was discussing, not substitutionary atonement in general. If you read what he actually said in the transcript Ruth linked to, you'll see that he staunchly affirmed substitionary atonement! It is this mechanism that is both severely lacking and biblically unsupported. There is no reference that I can think of in the Bible (OT or NT) to justify using this as our only (or even main) model of how the atonement works. What's worse, as I said, is that penal substitution is entirely focused on the Cross to the exclusion of the rest of the Incarnation - and, most particularly, it has no place in it at all for the Resurrection. Penal substitution is finished once the punishment is carried out. Once Jesus dies, the substitution is done in this model. The work is complete and nothing more needs to be done. This is a big problem, because Christianity (especially in the NT!) is focused on the risen Christ, not the dead one. The resurrection is what gives Christianity its shape. Penal substitution also says nothing about how our regeneration is achieved. It talks only of our legal status. Again, though, the Bible is clear that what happened wasn't simply a change in our status - it was a change in _us_. We are set free from sin and empowered to live a new life according to God's will. Simply dodging a legal judgement won't do that. The atonement must be more than this, and other models show us far more of what is going on.

So, when you appeal to the Fathers or the NT to support penal substitution, read carefully and you'll realise that what they're saying isn't penal substitution but simply substitution. They will be using the language of the temple or the slave market. They will, even more commonly, perhaps, be using language of _Christus Victor_ - Christ as victor in the struggle with sin, death and the devil.

pax et bonum

[David Palmer]

Dear John,

I see you have commented on my earlier contribution.

You say and I quote:

“There are a great many substitutionary models (both within and without the NT) in addition to penal substitution, which is (apart from anything else) a relatively recent innovation.”

Two points about this:

I don’t know what you mean about a great many substitutionary models. I have been theologically trained, indeed am an ordained Presbyterian minister now “retired” and have only ever known and been taught, and myself taught penal substitution, viz that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. This is a truth precious to the child of God and not to be ridiculed or pushed aside or covered over.

You mention a lack of support in the Church Fathers. Leaving them aside for the moment, what are you to make of Gal 3:13, 2 Cor 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24 for starters, and you have failed to take into account that little Greek participle “anti” in Mark 10:45 as well. As far as the Church Fathers are concerned, I invite you to consider the following list of references found here: http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/category/5/15/52/

My apologies Ruth for being argumentative this Easter Day (now drawing to a close in Melbourne, this most joyful day when we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, I have often thought how wonderful it must have been to walk and talk and eat with our risen Lord on that road to Emmaus)

I note John signs off, “pax et bonum”, which is most commendable. I must confess I am the grandson of a Gunn, and our motto is “aut pax aut bellum”!

[John]

Alan,
You're ignoring what I'm saying - penal substutition is NOT about sacrifice. The OT language about sacrifice doesn't address the issue of penal substitution at all, because it's a different way of understanding the relationship between God, priest and sinner. You are quite right about the presence of this imagery in the OT (and the NT, by the way - Hebrews is full of it) but quite wrong about whether this has any bearing on penal substitution.

To repeat just once more - penal substitution is NOT the same thing as saying that Jesus died in our place, or that Jesus died for our sins, or that Jesus redeemed us. Penal subsitution is ONLY about the idea that God is judge and prosecutor, and Jesus the proxy defendant in the heavenly law court. Anything else is not penal substitution. Denying the penal element (which is what Dean John was doing) is not the same as denying substitution.

And without the resurrection, Good Friday truly is Sad Friday - and there is no place for the resurrection in penal substitution.

pax et bonum

[David Ball]

In discussing this subject, it pays to be very careful about exactly what the Bible says, but also about exactly what it doesn't say.

If you look at the biblical texts closely, you will find that, in most if not all cases, the Bible talks about Christ dying "for sin" or for the "sin of the world", but nowhere does it talk about Christ dying for the sins of an individual (or any individual) or for "my sins".

On this basis, I would have thought that the more correct view is that Christ's death deals with all sin (because the crucifixion involves God himself, rather than a man) taking sin (which, if you hold a strong view of God's sovereignty, He cannot ultimately avoid responsibility for in at least some sense)
upon himself (or possibly, into himself, at least temporarily) in order to bridge the gap that sin creates between God and man.

Of course, part of coming to a saving faith in Christ involves a response of thankfulness and gratitude that, because of the cross, God no longer holds my own sin against me, but that is "merely" a personal consequence of the cross, not an explanation of why it is effective.

[Alan Marsh]

John, you simply cannot ignore the temple theology of the Old Testament on which so much of the New Testament depends.

The offering of sacrifice revolves around the need to obtain remission from the deadly effect of sin. The offering of a substitute - pigeon, lamb, bull, depending on the severity of the case and on the occasion, supremely the day of atonement - is clearly understood as the offering of a life in payment of the due penalty of death, albeit a payment which can only bring temporary remission and not eternal forgiveness.

The creature whose life is offered is evidently a substitute for the life of the sinner. There is no other reason for offering a sacrifice in the OT tradition.

It is a strange claim that this "was unknown for a thousand years after Christ", when it is so central a part of the biblical imagery which was intimately familiar to Jesus and his contemporaries.

Think of the powerful image presented by Genesis in the account of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham speaks prophetically when he says that "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering." On that occasion it is a ram, caught by its horns in a thicket. On the cross it is the Lamb of God who takes our place.

There is indeed a knee-jerk response to such an understanding of the cross, but it comes from failing to engage with the full biblical picture, and insisting instead on selective reading of the New Testament, based on a priori assumptions about the person of Christ.

Alternatively try thinking about it this way. Which statement would you rather choose:

Christ died for me?

Or Christ died for my sins?

I have no desire that anyone should die for me. But I am overwhelmed with sorrow, gratitude and joy to learn that Christ took my place on the cross when I was under sentence of death.

Simply to die on the cross for exemplary purposes speaks of generosity and of heroism, but it falls far short of the biblical concept of taking away the sins of the world by making a full and final offering on the cross in our place.

It is therefore not Sad Friday but Good Friday which is commemorated each year.

[John]

Alan,
I'll merely point out, because you seem to be unaware, that the sacrificial model of the atonement is nothing to do with penal substitution. Sacrifice is a substitionary model, true - it's just that there's no "penal" part.

Unless we restrict ourselves to the imagery of the lawcourt, we are not espousing penal substition. If you defend "penal substitution" with discussions of sacrifice, redemption or victory, you are not defending what you think you are.

This is the main point - there is no "One True Model" of the atonement. The Bible presents us with the fact of the atonement, and uses several different sets of imagery to understand it. Trying to force every passage into the mould of penal substitution (which, I repeat, was unknown for at least a thousand years after Christ) is to abuse the Bible.

There seems to be a knee-jerk response from certain parts of the church against anyone who dares to question penal substitution. It's become another shibboleth used to judge orthodoxy - only, this time, it's pure hypocrisy because even those who most strongly support penal substitution find themselves having to use different imagery in addition to it, not least because the Bible uses different imagery. "Penal substition" is one model that places God as judge and prosecutor, and Jesus as proxy defendant. If you add different pictures to that (like sacrificial lamb, or redemption) you're using a different model in addition.

pax et bonum

[KY Choong]

"Substitutionary atonement, penal atonement ... is still pretty incomprehensible to the average person in the pew."

If this observation is true, and I think it is, to what extent must the "average Christian" understand penal atonement to be right with God? At one extreme, is it just an interesting theory that one may or may not chose to endorse? Or at the other extreme, is it critical to have a true and complete understanding of penal atonement to be right with God?

If it is possible to be "right with God" without a precise understanding of penal atonement, what does it mean to claim that one "believes in penal atonement"? Is it enough to say, "I believe in penal atonement as per Church of England or as per Rowan Williams"? How can one believe in something that one does not understand? Isn't the belief really a belief in the Church of England or Rowan Williams (as the case may be)?

Perhaps an honest answer to "Do you believe in penal atonement?" is to say, "This is what penal atonement means to me". “Whether this is sufficient, I leave it to God. If it is not, may God have mercy on me and lead me to a correct understanding of penal atonement one day.”

And this is what penal atonement means to me, as best as I can understand it. First, I never understood the analogy of God as a judge punishing another person in my place. Even if a judge were to punish my Dad (say) for something I did wrong, it would not change the fact that I was the one that did the wrong. I am not less guilty of wrong doing just because my Dad takes the punishment on my behalf. If my guilt is to be fully dealt with, it is only because the person who I wronged forgives me. Forgiveness is both a necessary and (in my view) sufficient condition for dealing with my guilt.

This then is how I understand penal atonement. There are two parts. First is the wrong doing that I have committed in the past. Second is my propensity for doing wrong. I need forgiveness in respect of the former, and freedom from the latter. Jesus’ suffering (including his death) deals with both.

Jesus’ suffering deals with my past wrong doing in symbolic way. It cannot change the fact of my wrong doing. It cannot change the fact that I am guilty of wrong doing. I need forgiveness from the person I do wrong to. And that person does forgive me! In doing so however, my forgiver forgoes redress. This is very costly to my forgiver. Forgiveness of wrong doing is painful to my forgiver. To be sure, the real pain is inflicted when I do wrong. Having to forgive me is additionally painful, in the sense that my forgiver necessarily foregoes redress. In this sense, YHWH/Jesus necessarily suffers to deliver us from our past wrong doing. The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament is a symbol to help the Israelites understand that wrong doing necessarily has a cost that must be borne by someone. It is a cost that YHWH bears, first when the wrong doing is committed, and second by not judging the Israelites fully for the wrong doing. (In fact, the Israelites do not completely escape judgement.) Similarly, Jesus suffers and dies, once and for all, symbolizing the cost that YHWH/Jesus must necessarily bear as a result of our wrong doing.

But Jesus’ suffering would be in vain if all it did was to confirm that YHWH forgives us of our wrong doing. We also need freedom from our propensity to do wrong. YHWH becomes one of us to (a) show us a better way to live our lives (i.e., the way of love); and (b) by being the first person in human history to live a sinless life, start the process of releasing humanity from the power of sin. YHWY invites humanity to join his kingdom, the eternal kingdom that YHWH establishes here “on earth as it is in heaven”, through Jesus.

Jesus’ life and suffering shows us what love truly is so that we can begin to live a life free of wrong doing and in so doing, join YHWH’s kingdom. Jesus’ resurrection from death gives us hope of a final and complete deliverance from our propensity to wrong doing. The resurrection as a historical event assured the early Christians that Jesus is genuinely the messiah, the saviour, over whom sin and death has no power. They in turn proclaim this message to the rest of us. Those of us who somehow (by YHWH’s grace) believe this message look forward to a day when we too will be fully released from the power of sin. This hope, this faith and this love, helps deliver us from our propensity to do wrong.

[Steve Jeffery]

Statement of the 'controversial' doctrine:
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com

[Graham Miller]

A recently published book (Pierced for our Transgressions IVP) makes a very helpful contribution to this argument - defending the Biblical view of penal substitution.
The positive reviews of the book from everyone from Terry Virgo to Jim Packer indicate the stregth of feeling about this attack on the heart of the faith.

Jeffrey John's words vindicate those who argued that a disregard for the Bible's clear teaching on personal morality would lead to a disregard for the Bible's clear teaching of the gospel.

Paul resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Today many think they know better!

[Chris McMullen]

Christian theology has to be understood as a "package deal". Good Friday makes no sense without Christmas. A "penal substitute" would be a horrid thing, making God out to be the worst possible vindictive warrior-king. Unless: This is God substituting himself in this act, making it an event of unequalled compassion and forgiveness.

I think we don't like to hear this. (Once we've heard it rightly; i.e., taken the Incarnation utterly seriously, and not at a popular level that at Christmas only a Very Nice Man was born, and, Oh dear, that shadow of the cross over the manger in so many traditional Christmas paintings is so "boring"!)

The real offense of Good Friday is our inability to admit that our humanity --collectively, but also, for each of us, personally-- is so warped and compromised that this is what it takes for the Creator to "fix" us. (This is the real hard part for me --I've always though of myself as a pretty decent chap, after all, compared to...)

Ruth, the simplest start for an appreciation of the Christian doctrine of the atonement, for me, is remembering the few times I was actually given the grace to forgive someone. I don't mean to excuse them (then they didn't need forgiveness; only understanding). Nor to say, well, it really didn't matter (then it doesn't require forgiveness, either; only a proper perspective). Real forgiveness hurts. It takes an incredible act of self-denial, selfless compassion, and even courage. It also took strength beyond my own. To say "I love you more than I hurt." Then, images of sacrifice and pain do not seem so strange.

Indeed, the Christian claim is that we can forgive (ther real stuff, not just an indifferent "well, it really didn't matter...") ONLY because in Christ, the Creator himself (herself!) has forgiven us, and, by the Spirit released into the human story on that day (you have to read Jurgen Moltmann's "The Crucified God"), enabled us to forgive one-another.

This is gutsy stuff! It will take my whole life, and beyond, to understand it. But it's life-changing, life-demanding, and life-ennobling.

Nothing in our usual established church niceness --O look at the pretty cross" can compare to it.

Shall we our lives on its truth? Even if we're wrong, we will never be bored; never be overwhelmed by the evil in our world; never be without somethiong profound to pray about and grow into.

A Blessed Good Friday to all!!

[Alan Marsh]

John, if you insist on looking solely at NT texts, what you are actually doing is to take these out of their biblical context in the whole of scripture.

Even so there is plenty of evidence in the NT for what was understood about atonement in the time of Jesus.

Hebrews 9.22 says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", and the rest of that chapter explains the cross in terms of a sacrificial offering in the presence of God himself. This is entirely consistent with the words of Jesus as the Last Supper: Mat.26.28 "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Offerings were made as an atonement by which the price of sin was paid. God judges us justly, and justice requires that those who transgress against the law should pay the penalty for doing so.

Sin is a matter of life or death which we cannot airbrush away or ignore. If there is to be justice, a clear distinction between right and wrong, God's judgement on sin is the consequence of choosing wrong rather than right, our own inclinations rather than God's law.

God does come to our rescue, not by redefining justice or diminishing the seriousness of sin, but as Peter says, 1 Pet.2.24, "he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree...by his wounds you have been healed."

Without distorting or doing any kind of violence to these texts it is possible to see that God has indeed put forward someone to take the place we deserve as sinners; that this represents the satisfaction of the penalty which sin brings in its wake; and that God himself is the one who makes restitution on our behalf.

I write this and believe this without having ever read Calvin or Anselm. I am not putting forward any kind of defence of their theories about atonement. It is important however to read what the bible actually says, both OT and NT, in order to understand Christian teaching in the NT as it is intended by its authors. Hebrews is an excellent place to start if you wish to understand the atonement.

[rachel]

I was hoping Jeffery John would go further. See my post for today.

[Steven Carr]

I am baffled by Jeffrey John's comments.

He claims Luke 13 is not about suffering as being divine punishment and then quotes Jesus to 'back him up'.

Jesus said 'Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'

How does Jeffery John read this story and conclude that suffering is not a 'reward' for non-repentance?

Actually, it is quite easy. Jeffery John does not believe God punishes non-repentance.

Therefore, the Bible does not say that, because the Bible always agrees with the views of any Christian who quotes from it, even if what they are quoting is diametrically opposed to their beliefs.

[John]

David,
And I should point out that that verse you quote doesn't support penal substitution in any way. It is about the redemption model (rescuing us from slavery by paying the price to buy us from our previous owner, Satan). Be very careful not to assume that, just because someone speaks against one particular substitutionary model (penal substitution) that they are therefore against all substitutionary models. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a great many substitutionary models (both within and without the NT) in additiona to penal substitution, which is (apart from anything else) a relatively recent innovation. Certainly, nothing closely resembling it was written about for a good thousand years after Christ's death.

pax et bonum

[John]

David,
You wrote: "You quote Dr John saying that the church’s traditional Easter message that Christ was sent to earth to die for the sins of mankind made God sound like a “psychopath.” Further, that the traditional view of the event was repulsive, nonsensical and insane."

Read what Dr John actually said - it was nothing like what you claim. He said explicitly that Christ was sent to Earth to die for our sins. Where he differs from you (but by no means the historic Church or most of the contemporary Church) is in whether this may be understood only by applying the language of the law court, with God the Father as accused and judge and God the Son as proxy defendant.

pax et bonum

[John]

Alan,
To whom is the price paid? Well, if you read the NT, only model for a "price" being paid as part of the atonement has it being paid to Satan. We are slaves to sin until Christ redeems us (buys us out of slavery). You won't find the idea that, on the Cross, Jesus paid a debt to the Father in the NT. Still less a full-blown model of penal substitution. To read that into the NT requires doing some fairly serious abuse to the texts - reading them out of context, ignoring the fact that the texts talk of several different models (sacrifice, redemption, victory etc.).

I've been writing something about this on my blog in the past couple of days, if anyone's interested!

pax et bonum

[David Palmer]

Dear Ruth,

I occasional visit your blog from down under to see what you are reporting in your own interesting way.

In the church circles in which I find myself Dr John would be taken under our Code of discipline on a charge of heresy.

You quote Dr John saying that the church’s traditional Easter message that Christ was sent to earth to die for the sins of mankind made God sound like a “psychopath.” Further, that the traditional view of the event was repulsive, nonsensical and insane. If Dr John had been the preacher in my local church (South Yarra Presbyterian Church) today (Good Friday), absolute pandemonium would have broken out - the place would have been in an uproar.

It is not at all difficult in drawing on both the OT and NT to uncover penal substitution. Just one text from Jesus' own lips will suffice: Mark 10:45 "...to give his life as a ransom for many" That little preposition, "anti" translated “for” in the NIV but more accurately “instead of” or “in the place of” speaks volumes for substitution.

In one respect I do agree with Dr John, that to the unbeliever, and that is what he is, certainly in relation to the doctrine of the atonement, the message of the cross is repulsive, or in the words of the Apostle Paul, "foolishness" (! Cor 1:18f)

BTW, for a number of years in the 1980’s I and my family worshipped at The Independent Chapel, Spicer St in St Albans, probably the best attended Church in St Albans, the Abbey included, and my son attended St Albans School associated with the Abbey. I think you would find the average congregational member at Spicer St, and only a couple of hundred yards from the Abbey would be able to give a pretty good account of penal substitution.

I wish you and your readers Easter joy.

[Alan Marsh]

Malcolm French's quotation does not, unfortunately, explain anything. Look carefully at Dr John's logic, and the sentence quickly falls apart, for it leaves unresolved the question: to whom is the price is paid, if not God, whose judgement is just?

The tendency of John's argument is to deny any need for atonement, by limiting his description of the divine nature to "a totally loving God", to the exclusion of the justice of God's judgement between good and evil.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I've been back in the UK from Haifa for about three weeks and during this time have been asked to provide Lambeth Palace with the names of Anglican academics, clergy and 'others' who have some knowledge of Judaism.

The signs are therefore hopeful that, despite the best efforts of former Bishop Riah of Jerusalem et al, there are at least some in the Church of England who realise that the Hebrew Bible is relevant to teaching about Jesus and want to do something about the imbalance which has crept into the training of clergy.

Because if there is no link at all between Judaism and Christianity, because the Hebrew Bible is 'irrelevant, what on earth is the point of members of the Jewish community remaining in the UK?

[Stephen Clark]

This is something of a beat-up.
The problem with the notion of substitutionary atonement is that it is often presented as the only explanation of what God is doing in Christ on the Cross.
Anselm, I suggest, is offering a way of looking at what is happening. But not the only way.
Luther, for example, focusses on the battle between good and evil and names the signs in the heavens as a witness to this. In Christ's body a war is being waged between two opposed forces. That battle is won when, and only when, Christ says so.
Peter Abelard suggested that the cross is the ultimate moral example. Jesus in dying is showing humanity...greater love has no one than this, that they lay down their life.
This paradigmatic view of atonement is quite different in quality from the blood-curdling substitutionary atonement.
Hebrews takes a more religious stand all together (shouldn't we stick with the scriptures!!!)...it is about Christ by being both Priest and victim creating a new freedom for humanity to draw close to God.
No bloodthirsty deity here who needs to have their anger assuaged before they can forgive.
Dr John is not alone in pointing to the fact that we have become obsessed by substitutionary atonement. Nor is it new (Luther and Abelard are hardly new kids on the block.

[albion]

Ruth,

No comment on the post, per se, but confusion about the photo. Isn't that the Very Revd Elton John, the new dean of the Cathedral of St John the Divine?

[John]

Oh dear - come on, Ruth, you know better than this. Read what Dr John actually wrote, carefully. Notice that he says very clearly that be believes in substitution, in the price being paid. What he's objecting to (what many people, evangelical and liberal and catholic and everything else object to) is the idea that God the Father was so angry with us human beings that He simply had to punish someone, and instead of punishing us (who at least deserved it), He sent His only Son, and tortured and killed him instead. And, somehow, this made everything all right again - the Father wasn't angry any more because He'd got to punish someone.

This is admittedly a caricature of penal substitution - but it's both fairly accurate and very popular. Jesus said that "whoever has seen me has seen the Father", and the Jesus described in the Gospels simply doesn't have the wrathful character depicted for the Father in this model. Worse than that, though, it therefore posits that God the Father and God the Son are completely dissimilar, rather than being parts of the divine One. The Father is angry, the Son is loving; the Father punishes, the Son submits.

There's nothing wrong with substitution, but (as Jeffrey John pointed out, and others have done before) penal substitution lacks a great deal when it comes to explaining the Atonement.

Not least, and crucially at Eastertide, it offers no explanation at all for the resurrection. In penal substitution, Jesus' work is done as soon as He dies - the ultimate price has been paid, the Father is happy and reconciled to us again. Why, then, does Jesus rise? Why does He (as we're told He does) visit the spirits of the dead? Why does he assume a new resurrection body? There's something missing from penal substitution. Something so important that it renders the entire way of thinking suspect.

pax et bonum

[Heredal]

"I don't know what you have been reading, but it is simply not possible to understand the New Testament without the Old Testament context in which it is framed, in which Jesus grew up, which contains the scriptures Jesus used and quoted, and the Law which he lived and taught."

I agree. But there have been discussions on this very board in the recent past where that very sentiment was denied by some. I will search back and locate them if I have time this weekend.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Dr. John: “It’s about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins, the price of our sin is paid, but it is not paid to God, but by God.”

Thus I refute Broadbent, Benn and Marsh.

Perhaps if you chaps would pay attention, you might start responding with actual honest to God facts rather than hysterical condemnations based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

[Adrian Warnock]

Thanks for addressing this issue. Sadly this vicar is not alone in questioning the traditional views of the cross. If you or your readers want to learn more about this and join a discussion they are welcome to come over to my blog where I have started a series on the atonement

[Mike Hickerson]

@Heredal,
I'm not familiar with the exchanges you reference, but the OT is significant to understanding Jesus for at least two reasons. The first relies on whether you believe in the traditional Christian belief that Jesus has been part of the Godhead from the beginning (John 1). If so, then Jesus himself had a hand in shaping the OT. But, even if you don't believe that, it's pretty clear from the NT that Jesus and all of his immediate followers understood that his role was rooted in the OT. For example, when Jesus announces his public ministry in Luke 4, he quotes the prophet Isaiah and says, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Jesus' self-understanding is based in the OT. NT Wright does a good job of talking about this in his book, Jesus and the Victory of God.

[Alan Marsh]

Heredal, I don't know what you have been reading, but it is simply not possible to understand the New Testament without the Old Testament context in which it is framed, in which Jesus grew up, which contains the scriptures Jesus used and quoted, and the Law which he lived and taught.

Sacrifice and atonement are very significant concepts in the Old Testament, which Jesus maintains and transcends by offering himself for the sins of the world. Hence the title, Lamb of God, or the early hymn which is to be found at Philippians 2.5-11.

Denial of self for the common good is also a constant theme in the gospels. I don't think that is too incomprehensible - and the cross is the place on which Jesus makes that commitment completely and publicly, an innocent man offering up life itself for the sake of the guilty.

[Alan Marsh]

I suspect that Jeffrey's rather intemperate language may have been as much the cause of upset as the content of his broadcast, in which he ruled out pretty well any view of atonement, including those you list, Ruth.

It is difficult to understand how he squares this with his claim to be a leader of "Affirming Catholicism" - his argument makes a nonsense of most kinds of catholic eucharistic theology.

Perhaps he is simply hitting back at those he perceives to have criticised him in the past for his published support for homosexual "marriage"?

[heredal]

"Bishops Pete Broadbent and Wallace Benn said he'd got it wrong: 'You cannot read the Old Testament and New Testament .. and blank out an entirety of language and concept and understanding that means that we are guilty sinners, we need our sins to be paid for and we need Jesus Christ to die for us. That is what the Creeds say, it is what the Bible says and you cannot rewrite them. You cannot understand Jesus Christ without understanding Old Testament atonement material.'

Now I am confused. I recall reading exchanges on this board very recently with believers saying the Old Testament bore neither relation nor relevance to Christianity and was even 'a red herring', and atheists / agnostics or whatever arguing the opposite. Now it seems from these Bishops the OT is central to understanding the life of Jesus, and the atheists / agnostics were right all along. This is either very confusing for everyone or evidence, as the introduction implies, that it is possible "to believe more or less what you want to in the esablished Church." It does seem 'theology' is being held out here by Bishops Bent and John as something that can be comfortably interpreted to suit one's own prejudices.

I suspect many ordinary people share Jeffrey John's revulsion at the crucifixion for the very same reasons he does. It really isn't an uplifting tale. It is so very odd that the family is made so central a concept of Christianity, and yet the family Christianity celebrates at the core of its beliefs is one where the wife is made pregnant by someone other than her husband (!), namely a ghostly third party, and neither the husband nor the child's mother can prevent this spiritual 'Father' subsequently setting up the son to die a horrrific death, just because He's having a hissy fit about the behaviour of the human beings He supposedly created in His likeness.

Families don't come more dysfunctional than that! I suspect Jeffrey John has opened a real can of worms here, and that Archbishop Williams might be tempted to have a longer sabbatical.