Search This Blog

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Charles Hodge's Attempt to Justify Penal Substitution

Charles Hodge (1797-1878) was the preeminent theologian of "old Princeton." He was professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary for over 50 years. He wrote many books and journal articles but is his magnum opus was the 3 volume Systematic Theology written from 1871-1873 and containing 2,260 pages. Hodge was a staunch Calvinist and a strong defender of the Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST) of the atonement.

In Volume 2 of his classic Systematic Theology, he discusses the objections to the PST. He writes:
It is said to be self-evident that the innocent cannot be guilty; and if not guilty he cannot be punished, for punishment is the judicial infliction of evil on account of guilt. As the Church doctrine, while maintaining the perfect sinlessness of Christ, teaches that He bore the guilt of sin, and therefore was regarded and treated as a sinner, that doctrine assumes both an impossibility and an act of injustice. It assumes that God regards things as they are not. He regards the innocent as guilty. This is an impossibility. And if possible for Him to treat the innocent as guilty, it would be an act of gross injustice (p. 530).
He offers five responses to the problem:
1. That they avail nothing against the plain declaration of the Scriptures. If the Bible teaches that the innocent may bear the guilt of the actual transgressor; that He may endure the penalty incurred in his place, then it is in vain to say that this cannot be done (p. 530).
This is just basically the same as the bumper sticker which says: God said it. I believe it. That settles it. It assumes that whatever the Bible says is equal to God's word and it assumes that it is so crystal clear that cannot be more than one interpretation of what it means. First, the assertion that the Bible is God's word is simply that, an assertion. It is a matter of faith. It cannot be proven. Second, Christians through the ages have not been able to come to a unified consensus on what the Bible means when it speaks of the atonement. There are multiple theories.
2. If it be said that these moral objections render it necessary to explain these representations of Scripture as figurative, or as anthropomorphic modes of expression, as when God is said to have eyes, to stand, or to walk, then the reply is that these representations are so didactic, are so repeated; and are so inwrought into the whole system of Scriptural doctrine, that they leave us no alternative but to receive them as the truths of God, or to reject the Bible as his word (p. 530).
Frankly, I agree with Hodge here. I am aware of at least one evangelical theologian who says that the PST of the atonement is an accommodation to the understanding of the ancients and should not be seen as the way the atonement "really" works. He says that just as God accommodated himself in describing creation in six days, which should not be taken literally, God accommodated himself in describing the atonement in terms of penal substitution, but it shouldn't be taken literally. Hodge would argue and I would agree that if one does that, then one is rejecting the Bible as the Word of God and cannot be considered an evangelical.
3. Rejecting the Bible does not help the matter. We cannot reject the facts of providence. Where is the propriety of saying that the innocent cannot justly suffer for the guilty, when we see that they actually do thus suffer continually, and everywhere since the world began? There is no moral principle asserted in the Bible, which is not carried out in providence. God says He will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate Him. And so He does, and ever has done. Are we so confident in ourselves as to deny that there is a just God who governs the world, rather than admit that the innocent may rightfully bear the iniquity of the guilty? In teaching the doctrine of legal substitution, of the transfer of guilt from the transgressor to the innocent, of the satisfaction of justice by vicarious punishment, the Bible asserts and assumes no moral principle which does not underlie all the providential dealings of God with individuals or with nations (pp. 530-31).
Hodge maintains that not only does the Bible teach that the innocent may suffer in place of the guilty but that the providence of God in history demonstrates the fact. He is right that the Pentateuch does mention three times the phrase: "God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Ex. 20:5, Num 14:18, Deut. 5:9). What Hodge fails to mention, however, is that this punishment of the children for the deeds of their forefathers seems to be revoked in Ezekiel 18:2-4, 20:
What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge"? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. . . . The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him (NIV)
Could it be that the moral sensibilities of some of the Hebrews were evolving? They were bothered by the notion of the innocent sons being punished for the sins of their forefathers. Certainly, God did punish the innocent along with the guilty many times in the OT. For example, the extermination of all the Canaanites, including their infants and children. The extermination of the Amalekites, including infants and children, for what their forefathers had done 400 years prior. The stoning of Achan's entire family for what he personally did. However, it may be that this "collective culpability" is beginning to be seen as morally problematic by the author of Ezekiel and some of the other Hebrews. Thus, Ezekiel 18 says God will no longer punish the children for what their forefathers have done.

The truth is that many primitive societies had a "collective culpability" mentality. If one of the group (family, tribe, or nation) was guilty of a crime, then the whole group was guilty. This, I think, is the basis upon which Paul in Romans 5 tries to establish the culpability of the entire human race for the sin of Adam. Collective culpability made sense to many ancients who with their primitive morality and their clannish societies thought in terms of group sins. Modern man's sense of morality, however, has evolved to realize that it is wrong to hold an innocent individual culpable for what his or her group does. This issue was discussed at length in the philosophical literature after WW II with regard to whether the whole German nation should be held responsible for what the Nazis had done, especially to the Jews. The consensus was that it would be unjust to hold every person within a group responsible for what some or even the majority within the group did (See Collective Responsibility: Five Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics, edited by Larry May and Stacey Hoffman, 1991).

So, while Hodge is right that one can find "collective culpability" in the OT, two facts are important to remember. One, technically there was no punishing the innocent in these cases since the whole group was seen to be collectively responsible. Two, there is evidence in the OT itself, that some people's sense of justice was being violated by this "collective culpability" and thus there was beginning a move away from the concept to more of the modern concept of "individual responsibility."
4. Men constantly deceive themselves by postulating as moral axioms what are nothing more than the forms in which their feelings or peculiar opinions find expression. To one man it is an axiom that a holy God cannot permit sin, or a benevolent God allow his creatures to be miserable; and he, therefore, infers either that there is no God, or that He cannot control the acts of free agents. To another it is self-evidently true that a free act cannot be certain, and therefore that there can be no foreordination, or foreknowledge, or prediction of the occurrence of such acts. To another, it is self-evident that a merciful God cannot permit any portion of his rational creatures to remain forever under the dominion of sin and suffering. There would be no end of controversy, and no security for any truth whatever, if the strong personal convictions of individual minds be allowed to determine what is, or what is not true, what the Bible may, and what it may not, be allowed to teach (p. 531).
Hodge is correct that man has many subjective notions of what is right and wrong. However, the notion that the innocent should not be punished for what the guilty has done seems to be virtually universal. The fact that no human system of jurisprudence allows such and the fact that it instinctively and intuitively seems wrong to all men even from infancy (see Bloom's research), this particular concept of morality or justice is about as close as one can get to an objective ethic.

Hodge goes on to recognize that there are, in his opinion, objective moral principles which have been implanted in man through natural revelation but he denies that punishing an innocent in place of the guilty is one of them.

He writes:
It must be admitted, however, that there are moral intuitions, founded on the constitution of our nature, and constituting a primary revelation of the nature of God, which no external revelation can possibly contradict. The authority of these intuitive truths is assumed or fully recognized in the Bible itself. They have, however, their criteria. They cannot be enlarged or diminished. No man can add to, or detract from, their number. Those criteria are, (1.) They are all recognized in the Scriptures themselves. (2.) They are universally admitted as true by all rational minds. (3.) They cannot be denied. No effort of the will, and no sophistry of the understanding can destroy their authority over the reason and conscience (p. 531).
I would argue against Hodge that each one of his three criteria is met with regard to the principle of punishing the innocent in place of the guilty. (1) Ezekiel 18, as shown above, does reject the notion of punishing the innocent. (2) I believe this notion is universal, again as stated above. (3) I don't think any amount of "sophistry," as Hodge calls it, can overthrow the conscience of man that it is never right to punish an innocent person. As I have shown in this series, there has been many different attempts to rationalize or explain the justice of punishing an innocent but none have succeeded. It still strikes the conscience of man as wrong. No matter how much good might come from it, it is still itself, an unjust act.
5. It is very evident that the principle that “the innocent cannot justly be punished for the guilty,” cannot stand the application of the above-mentioned criteria. So far from being recognized in the Bible, it is contrary to its plainest declarations and facts. So far from being universally received among men as true, it has never been received at all as part of the common faith of mankind. The substitution of the innocent for the guilty, of victims for transgressors in sacrifice, of one for many; the idea of expiation by vicarious punishment, has been familiar to the human mind in all ages. It has been admitted not only as possible, but as rational, and recognized as indicating the only method by which sinful men can be reconciled to a just and holy God. It is not, therefore, to be admitted that it conflicts with any intuition of the reason or of the conscience; on the contrary it is congenial with both (pp. 531-32).
Hodge makes many assertions here but offers no evidence. I can only surmise that he means that in the history of religions, there have been many sacrifices made to gods of innocent persons. These sacrifices were thought to propitiate or placate the gods' anger. He is right about that. It has been a practice of primitive cultures but is universally rejected today. What Hodge does not show is that any human system of jurisprudence has an established principle that it is just for an innocent to take the place of the guilty in punishment. This simple fact illustrates clearly that mankind universally agrees that such an action would be immoral and unjust.

Hodge continues:
It is no doubt frequently the case that opposition to this doctrine arises from a misapprehension of the terms in which it is expressed. By guilt many insist on meaning personal criminality and ill desert; and by punishment evil inflicted on the ground of such personal demerit. In these senses of the words the doctrine of satisfaction and vicarious punishment would indeed involve an impossibility (p. 532).
But that is exactly what the PST is saying, in my opinion. If personal guilt does not derive from personal criminality, then from what does it arise? The essence of the retributive theory of punishment, which no doubt the Bible teaches (e.g., lex talonis ), is that a crime deserves punishment. This desert applies only to the individual who is responsible for the crime. The PST teaches that every man deserves the penalty of death because every man has sinned (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). It is this penalty that Jesus takes in the place of man (Rom. 5:8; I Pet. 2:24).

Hodge continues his explanation:
Moral character cannot be transferred. The Remonstrants were right in saying that man cannot be good with another’s goodness, any more than he can be white with another’s whiteness. And if punishment means evil inflicted on the ground of personal demerit, then it is a contradiction to say that the innocent can be punished (emphasis mine). But if guilt expresses only the relation of sin to justice, and is the obligation under which the sinner is placed to satisfy its demands, then there is nothing in the nature of things, nothing in the moral nature of man, nothing in the nature of God as revealed either in his providence or in his word, which forbids the idea that this obligation may on adequate grounds be transferred from one to another, or assumed by one in the place of others (p. 532).
I have to confess that Hodge has lost me here. He seems to admit my point that punishment for personal demerit cannot be transferred but then says that if guilt expresses only the relation of sin to justice, and is the obligation under which the sinner is placed to satisfy its demands, then punishment can be transferred. What he means by guilt expressing the relation of sin to justice and it being the obligation under which the sinner is placed, is not at all clear to me. He does not elaborate on this point but moves on to another topic in his book. So, he leaves us with a great deal of ambiguity but whatever he means by his statement does not seem to in any way permit the punishment of the innocent in place of the guilty. It is another failed attempt, in my opinion, to justify the PST.

29 comments:

  1. "... the idea of expiation by vicarious punishment, has been familiar to the human mind in all ages."

    Calvinists like Hodge always want it both ways. If mankind generally accepts an idea that the pious believer also regards as true, such widespread endorsement helps support its truthfulness (hey, everyone believes it). But if mankind generally rejects the doctrine, it's still true and the rejection only demonstrates the natural man's perpetual enmity with God.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Ken - You could easily find out what Hodge means by "relation of sin to justice" by Googling for "relation of sin to justice". He's talking about a pretty clearcut concept which mirrors what Paul said on the subject.

    Of course, anyone who could make it past point #1 and also barrel past point #2 ("they leave us no alternative but to receive them as the truths of God, or to reject the Bible as his word") is not really in Hodge's target audience, and not really eager to understand what is meant by "relation of sin to justice".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ken,
    Hodge maintains that not only does the Bible teach that the innocent may suffer in place of the guilty but that the providence of God in history demonstrates the fact. He is right that the Pentateuch does mention three times the phrase: "God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Ex. 20:5, Num 14:18, Deut. 5:9). What Hodge fails to mention, however, is that this punishment of the children for the deeds of their forefathers seems to be revoked in Ezekiel 18:2-4, 20.
    Please complete the citation by Hodge, “…of those that hate Him.” The point in Ex. 20:5; Num. 14:18; and Deut. 5:9 is never that children are being punished for their parents’ sins. Deut. 24:16 make it abundantly clear that the individual, even in the OT, was culpable for his own sins, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Thus, the principle asserted in the Pentateuch is not being repealed, rethought, or reconsidered in the exilic period; the sense of Hebrew justice is not evolving; just the opposite it has devolved by Ezekiel’s day and is being corrected by him. The point made by God through Moses, and reiterated through Ezekiel, is that children would be affected by their parents’ sin. Parents model for their children what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, the parents’ sinful behavior and habits are often followed by their children (this is readily seen today in the proliferation of abusive behavior by children who were raised in abusive homes). The point in Ezekiel is that the children, now in exile, were blaming God for being unjust (Ezk. 18:25a, 29b). They came to believe He was punishing them for their forefathers’ sins – a clear misunderstanding of Ex. 20:5; Num. 14:18; and Deut. 5:9). Regrettably, therefore, these same children frequently found themselves practicing the same sinful acts as their parents’. Therefore, the admonition of Ezekiel 18 is for them to accept the same just punishment for such actions. God is driving home the point through his prophet that each child is still individually responsible (Ezk. 18:4). The misunderstanding of the exiles, which could lead to irresponsibility and fatalism, was expressed in the contemporary proverb in Judah: "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Ezk. 18:2) i.e., what the father did caused judgment to be meted out against his children. The people believed (cf. Jer 31:27-30; Lam 5:7) that righteousness and wickedness were hereditary; therefore, there was no reason to change one's ways. God’s response through the prophet to this new proverb was that the hereditary principle would cease immediately (v. 3), for it had been erroneously applied to righteousness and unrighteousness. The principle of heredity which Ezekiel’s contemporaries had adopted was erroneous and declared as such by God in chapter 18. The principle of individual responsibility before God has always been true (cf. Gen 2:17; 4:7; Deut 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezek 3:16-21; 14:12-20; 33:1-20). A son is not bound to be like his father, though that was the concept among Ezekiel's contemporaries, as it often is today.
    However, it should be pointed out that Ezk. 18 goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the children can abort the "sin-punishment-inheritance" progression at any time – (if you sin there is punishment and the likelihood that your children will follow in your sinful ways and suffer the same punishment for their own sins). But he must repent and do what is right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (Part 2) I think your attempt to demonstrate an evolution in ethical and moral perceptions of justice between Moses and Ezekiel is fallacious; just the opposite is true. The sense of justice the people had embraced had devolved into something other than what God had told them with Moses into a skewed sense of justice which Ezekiel was bound to correct.

    That said, I think Hodge, along with other of his contemporaries adopted an erroneous view in relation to the passages cited above, and for the reasons I noted above. However, this should not be taken to mean that Hodge’s assertion the innocent may rightfully bear the iniquity of the guilty is incorrect. The entire sacrificial system of the OT supports the idea that of penal substitution. The fact that an innocent lamb could bear the guilt of an individual, let alone the nation, thus freeing that individual from the consequences of his sin is seen throughout the entire OT system. I disagree with Hodge in his specific use in this instance, but not with his assertion.

    I have read your posts with great interests and have come to a conclusion. You seek to compare the atoning work of Christ in penal satisfaction with the exactitude of (mainly modern) legal code. Our modern legal code, and subsequent sense of justice, is more interested in pecuniary satisfaction – that what is paid is the precise amount or the exact thing owed; nothing else. Release then, is not a matter of grace, but of right. (E.g. If a thief does the jail time to which he is sentenced then he has paid his debt to society and is free to return to his life.) In this line of thinking, the atonement of Christ becomes legal tender for forgiveness. A substitute can pay the debt of another in a pecuniary arrangement, but the emphasis is on the debt and amount being paid, not on forgiveness. Our entire American penal code is built upon pecuniary satisfaction. Thus, to compare the penal satisfaction of Christ to the American, let alone the global, sense of justice is fallacious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (Part 3) The penal satisfaction of Jesus emphasizes the crime and persons involved; the kind of payment and by whom. Vicarious suffering is admissible at the discretion of the judge, and release is a matter of grace as well as right because the judge voluntarily submits to or accepts the penalty arrangement. In this instance, the eternal, holy, righteous God is the one who has been offended. He is both sovereign and gracious. Thus, God chose to accept the full legal equivalent rather than the exact suffering – a just moral equivalent.

    Those who hold to penal satisfaction recognize that Jesus’ sufferings were different from that of an ordinary human being, but they were the legal equivalent to the infinite debt that sinners owed. His suffering for sin was a generic one not a numerical one. Suffering must be equal but not necessarily identical. Identical suffering must be by the guilty sinner himself. In penal satisfaction it is the guilt of the sinner that is removed. God is infinitely holy – this is the fundamental moral attribute of God. Sin is a contradiction of God’s holiness and creates guilt. Guilt demands punishment. As is seen in the various OT sacrifices (cf. Lev. 1:4; 3:2, 8, 12; 4:4; 16:21-22) and in the direct statements of Scripture (cf. Isa. 53:4-6, 8-9, 11-12; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18), a criminal cannot substitute for a criminal in a perfect moral order. Thus, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, must vicariously pay the penalty for the guilt of the human race because He was the only true descendant of Adam (through the hypostatic union) who not guilty. Couple this truth with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner who exercises faith and God is both legally and ethically just in forgiving that sinner’s guilt and declaring him righteous in His sight.

    I am sure you will object to my comments. What would be the point of your blog if you didn’t? It’s late, I have children that need baths, and it would consume a great deal of time and “ink” going over the use of huper and peri in the NT in connection with substitution, the nature of the substitution and Christ’s being “made to be sin,” and the various categories of atonement which the blood sacrifice of Christ in His penal atonement address. That, dear friend, is a discussion for another night.

    DM - STOP GIVING CHRISTIANS A BAD NAME AND CLEAN UP YOUR LANGUAGE!

    ReplyDelete
  6. DWSmith said, "The point made by God through Moses, and reiterated through Ezekiel, is that children would be affected by their parents’ sin."

    Is that what happened when Achan's entire family was stoned on account of Achan's sin? The children were merely being "affected?"

    Also, I noticed that DM, in addition to blathering like a lunatic, announced threateningly that people here will die for their comments. So DWSmith delivers an admonition ... against his use of profanity. (And even then, only because it damages Christian PR.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. @SteveJ - I think DM will soon illuminate us about the "time cube" :-) http://www.timecube.com/

    FWIW, I applaud Ken for this entire series of posts on PST; I don't know of anyone who has ever gathered together all of the various justifications for PST and presented them so clearly. And although I disagree with some of Ken's conclusions, I think he's done a good job of honestly presenting the basic outlines of each theologian's explanation. Ken has created a resource on PST that I will revisit repeatedly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joshua,

    I recognize that I (an apostate) am not in Charles Hodge's target audience; however, he is attempting to defend the justice of the PST and to merely state that its what the Bible teaches is not a defense UNLESS one has already presupposed the truth of the Bible. As far as "sin's relation to justice," the fact is that Hodge does not explain what he means by this ambiguous statement. Obviously there is a relation and but the question is: "what is the relation?"

    Thanks for your kudos for my series. As you can probably tell, I am somewhat obsessed with this subject. I have a number of other theologians to cover in this series, including William G. T. Shedd, A. A. Hodge, R.L. Dabney, Morton Wiley, Thomas Torrance, and even Karl Barth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David,

    Your argument is with Hodge. He is the one who is saying that these passages in the Pentateuch teach substitutionary punishment . He writes: God says He will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate Him. And so He does, and ever has done. Are we so confident in ourselves as to deny that there is a just God who governs the world, rather than admit that the innocent may rightfully bear the iniquity of the guilty? (pp. 530-31). I think the phrase "those who hate him" refers back to the first generation. Do you have some grammatical evidence that it doesn't? It certainly seems to be the ways the Hebrews understood it and hence the proverb about the parents eating the sour grapes but the children's teeth being set on edge. As Steve pointed out, there are plenty of examples in the OT of God punishing the innocent along with the guilty (Achan's family, the Amalekites, etc). As I argued, the Hebrews did not see this as problematic like we do today because of their mindset of "collective culpability."

    ReplyDelete
  10. David,

    I am not comparing the PST taught in the Bible with the American legal code necessarily, but with the innate sense of justice that we all share that it is wrong to punish an innocent person. Even little children recognize this. Try punishing one of your children for what the other one has done. He or she will cry out: but that's not fair!.

    Your argument that since God is both the judge and the offended party, then he can decide on who pays the penalty, is in my opinion, a red herring. It directs attention away from the main issue, namely, how can the punishment of an innocent person pay the penalty? Yes, as absolute judge, God could rule any way he chooses; but if he is a just God, then whatever his ruling is must be just . How is it just to punish someone for what they did not do? That is the question.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “another failed attempt” True, but not exactly for the reason you suggest. “Thus, Ezekiel 18 says God will no longer punish the children for what their forefathers have done.” I think a clearer understanding of the commandment in Exodus 20 is needed, yet it still supports your theory that PST is false and not Torah based.

    No one has questioned why the Torah is so confused that it can’t decide if the children should be punished to the third generation or to the fourth generation. What about the fifth generation?

    A child typically outlives the parent.

    If a child has a wicked parent and the child is taught the Almighty’s laws, and becomes an adult, while the parent is still alive and still chooses to follow in the parent’s evil ways, even when he knows it is wrong, then, the grown child is punished if he commits the sin of idol worship.

    Often a child will be born, grow up and know his grandparent (second generation away). If a child has a wicked grandparent, and the child is taught the Almighty’s laws, and becomes an adult, while the grandparent is still alive and still chooses to follow in the grandparent’s evil ways, even when he knows it is wrong, then, the grown child is punished if he commits the sin of idol worship.

    Sometimes, but not often, a child is born, grows up and knows his great grandparent (third generation away). If a child has a wicked great grandparent, and the child is taught the Almighty’s laws, and becomes an adult, while the great grandparent is still alive and still chooses to follow in the great grandparent’s evil ways, even when he knows it is wrong, then, the grown child is punished if he commits the sin of idol worship.

    Seldom, but it is possible, that a child is born, grows up and knows his great great grandparent (fourth generation away). If a child has a wicked great great grandparent, and the child is taught the Almighty’s laws, and becomes an adult, while the great great grandparent is still alive and still chooses to follow in the great great grandparent’s evil ways, even when he knows it is wrong, then, the grown child is punished if he commits the sin of idol worship.

    Now the passage makes sense. Exodus 34:6-7 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." NIV

    According to the oral tradition only Achan, was killed, not his family. That’s their tradition, and it is their book.

    And yet you are correct. This law only applies to the Children of Israel who accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai. It does not apply to the Amalekites or the Canaanites.

    It is a reasonable conclusion not to believe in a god who would murder innocent people, Jews or non Jews. I’m just giving the foundation of the Hebrew documents to show how PST is based on an incorrect understanding of Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Emet,

    DW Smith believes that penal substitution is found in the Hebrew Scriptures related to animal sacrifices. Do you see it that way?

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Ken - I wasn't making reference to apostasy; just pointing out that Hodge's explanation is aimed at people who already believe and are receptive to explanations. If you don't trust the veracity of the Bible, it's kind of a moot issue, isn't it? I mean, the writings about propitiation may have been forgeries, or corruptions introduced by Paul, or any number of other things.

    The fact that he didn't elaborate on "relation of sin to justice" suggests that he assumed readers would know what he meant. If you don't understand it, it's easy enough to look it up. This is the year 2010, and you don't even need to manually read through a bunch of volumes of theology to find it out -- all you need to do is spend a few minutes on Google. The fact that you don't bother figuring out what he means, could say something about your sincerity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joshua,

    You are assuming that "relation of sin to justice" is sometype of standard phrase that everyone agrees upon. I would love to see your google reference that clears all of this up.

    Hodge is saying that guilt is the relation of sin to justice and it can be transferred, whereas demerit cannot. That does not make sense to me. Guilt is only applicable when there is demerit. If there is no demerit, there is no guilt and should be no punishment. What am I missing here?

    ReplyDelete
  15. You could start with the very first link that comes up on Google, which quotes Hodge explaining what he means by that statement, "Guilt is the relation of sin to justice. If there is no justice, there is no guilt". The context is a response to a certain "Dr. Bushnell", who in 1866 wrote a book arguing essentially the same points as you.

    There is another link on the first results page, to a journal edited by Hodge, responding to the same Dr. Bushnell. "Guilt is the relation of sin to justice. If there is no justice, there can be no guilt, as where there is no law there can be no transgression."

    You may still disagree with Hodge; but if so, there is no harm in putting in the extra effort to convey what he's saying, accurately.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Joshua,

    I understood that Hodge was saying that guilt is the relation of sin to justice. The quote I have from in the post says that much. What I didn't understand and still don't is how Hodge can think that a person can be guilty without demerit. The very verdict of guilty means that the person has been found to have committed the crime. So, I don't understand and I don't know if Hodge understood as he never explained it--how there can be guilt without there being a crime (demerit as he likes to call it).

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Try punishing one of your children for what the other one has done. He or she will cry out: but that's not fair!."

    I agree. They would. But, if one of my children volunteered to take the punishment for the other then I, as the judge so to speak, am perfectly just in accepting that vicarious work.

    And you're right, to innate sense of justice, whether American or not, the concept of a vicarious atonement is not often seen, but it is not altogether foreign. My 3 year old is quite protective of his 10 month old little sister. In fact, about a week ago my wife had to scold our daughter for her repeated attempts to eat an electric cord she kept going after. My wife used the situation to teach our daughter not to grab the cord. My son was outraged that his sister was scolded, told my wife so, and voluntarily took the hand-spank for his sister. Additionally, my 10 month old daughter routinely cries when her big brother must be disciplined. She's totally innocent, but dislikes the fact that her guilty big brother must be punished for his sin. Classic examples of an innocent taking the punishment for the guilty. Now, tell me even children object to this concept.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David,

    The issue comes down to what is the point in punishing a person if he/she did not commit the crime?

    You said:My 3 year old is quite protective of his 10 month old little sister. In fact, about a week ago my wife had to scold our daughter for her repeated attempts to eat an electric cord she kept going after. My wife used the situation to teach our daughter not to grab the cord. My son was outraged that his sister was scolded, told my wife so, and voluntarily took the hand-spank for his sister .

    What purpose in your mind or your wife's mind, did hand-spanking the innocent child accomplish? Was it necessary that somebody, no matter who, get hand-spanked for the act? I doubt it. Was it so that your younger child would appreciate what her brother did for her? That would be the moral influence theory not the PST. Was it so that both your son and your daughter would realize how important it is to obey their parent's rules? If so, that is the governmental theory not the PST. The PST would only apply if somehow your son had the guilt of his sister transferred to him and he thus became the sinner and she became innocent. Is that what happened?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Ken - I think you're just being lazy. You ought to read the whole retort of Hodge to Bushnell, since Bushnell was arguing essentially the same as you are. But fine, here is a relevant quote:


    "Every one knows, and every one, except Dr. Bushnell (and Ken Pulliam), admits that the Greek word δικαιος (and the English word righteous), has also a judicial, or forensic sense. In other words, it expresses sometimes the relation of a man to holiness, and sometimes his relation to justice; in other words, sometimes his relation to the precept, and sometimes to the penalty of the law."

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Ken - Reading your response to David, I suspect that you have a problem with the concept of expiation? You seem to be proposing that punishment is only moral when it's done to reform the offender or to prevent further offences. Moral influence theory and governmental theory are both variants of this man-first utilitarian slant on justice. That is, you are refusing to see "relation of sin to justice", and instead accepting only "relation of sin to holiness". Luther would have called that a "theology of glory", rather than a "theology of the cross".

    While you may personally find expiation to be repulsive, and especially expiation via punishment of an innocent, you cannot deny that expiation through willful infliction of evil on innocents (i.e. substitution) pervades the Bible. Hodge quites Isaiah 43:3 and Deuteronomy 21 as examples, but of course the entire sacrificial system of the OT is about penal substitution.

    In any case, I think that you have come nowhere near close to proving your point about Christ's sacrifice being repulsive to our innate morality. Where are the empirical studies, or even anthropological field research, to support your assertion. You have only repeated assertion.

    Indeed, children's concept of justice is purely one related to expiation ("the relation of sin to justice"), and is not at all based on the utilitarian considerations you outline for David. If you have any experience raising children, and are honest with yourself, you'll admit that this is true.

    Secondly, the idea that a child would find repugnant or repulsive, the idea that a parent or other would accept expiation in the child's stead, is likewise ludicrous. Parents accept expiation in their children's stead constantly.

    Both moral intuitions (the necessity of expiation, and the willingness to accept expiation made in our stead) are innate to human nature. It is only a lifetime of sophistry that can erase these moral intuitions. By insisting on viewing expiation as a "relation of sin to holiness" rather than to justice, you've created a confusion for yourself and rendered yourself incapable of understanding what any child understands.

    Finally, I don't know if you've followed through to the logical conclusions of what you're insisting (i.e. that Ken Pulliam's moral intuitions are sufficient to judge God to be unjust). You are either presupposing yourself to be God prior to evaluating PST, or else you're presupposing that you and God are both subordinate to a higher moral law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joshua,

    I realize what Hodge is saying but I don't understand how he can say that one is guilty without being unrighteous. He wants to separate demerit and guilt and say that Christ had the latter but not the former. That makes no sense. See Miley's refutation in today's post.

    How does punishing an innocent bring about expiation?

    I realize that the Bible teaches a retributive theory of justtice, i.e., that sin intrinsically deserves to be punished regardless of how it impacts either the sinner or others. My point to David was that his child volunteering to take the punishment for the other child does not represent retributive justice (upon which the PST is based)but could only represent some other forms of justice. So, while his illustration shows that substitution works under other theories of justice, it does not work under the retributive theory.

    What I am presupposing is this: The Bible says that man's sense of right and wrong is innate and comes as a result of being made in the image of God. One aspect of that is that it is wrong to punish an innocent person. Yet that is precisely what God does in the atonement. So, if the Bible is true, then there is a contradiction between what God has implanted within man and what God has done in history.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What purpose in your mind or your wife's mind, did hand-spanking the innocent child accomplish? Was it necessary that somebody, no matter who, get hand-spanked for the act?

    Ken, they're authoritarians; absolutely that is the point for them - although, you watch, he'll try to wriggle out of it.

    Meanwhile, I have a question for DW - why do most conservative Christians have private Blogger profiles? What is it you're all afraid of?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Ken - If you realize what Hodge is saying, why not accurately portray what he said in your summary? You're doing such a great job otherwise, that I find it very weird that you'd be so stubborn about this.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cipher - I am absolutely an authoritarian. What is it about me you'd like to know. Ask.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joshua,

    I am not perfect and my summary may be incomplete or unclear; however, I think the gist of what I said is true. Hodge does not explain HOW (he simply states it) one can have guilt without having demerit. That is where he lost me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ken,

    It is easy to understand how Christians have come to the conclusion that Jesus is a substitute/final “sacrifice” from reading the Hebrew documents without understanding the concepts behind the words. The understanding of the Hebrew word “korban” does not carry the meaning of “sacrifice” as we understand the word. Korban translates into “a process of coming close” to the Almighty.

    The difference really starts with the understanding of the word “sin” or in Hebrew “chait”. It relates to shooting a bow and arrow and it means to miss the mark. The best explanation is at
    http://www.aish.com/jl-old/j/48964596.html Yes, cipher, I know, but even though you don’t like the organization, it doesn’t make the explanation of the Hebrew word chait not true. It is a concise and accurate definition of the Hebrew word.

    The confusion is between the process of coming close to the Almighty through the korbon offerings and the process of repentance know as teshuva. I can only understand the korbon process intellectually. If I had to personally slaughter animals just for my food, I’m sure I would be a vegetarian. The category of “slaughtered animal offerings” are for many different ways of coming close to the Almighty (see below) but absolutely not for willful (pesha) or spiteful (avon) transgressions. That process is teshuva - admitting your transgression, understanding the gravity of the transgression and regretting it. Then making a plan not to do it again, and asking the Almighty for forgiveness. Sincere Teshuva ERASES the transgression. Yes, erases.

    Isaiah 43:25 I, only I, am He Who wipes away your willful sins (pesha) for My sake, and I will not recall your sins.

    No need for Jesus or anyone to die for another’s sin. That concept is not in the Hebrew documents. The Torah explicitly states the opposite - no one dies for another’s sin. That’s the whole point of teshuva. You make the change yourself. It is very empowering. Unlike the Christian idea that man is a sinner, held prisoner by sin and cannot change and can only succeed by believing that Jesus dies for my sins. The famous philosopher Michael Jackson said, “...if you want to make the world a better place, then look at yourself and make the change”.

    1)chatas known in English as a sin offering but these were only for unintentional sins. An intentional sin needed repentance or teshuvah which is a completely different process.
    2)asham or guilt offering - please read Lev. 5:14-25 It is for specific unintentional sins.
    3)olah or elevation offerings - these have nothing to do with sin.
    4)shelamim or peace offerings - communal and personal - these have nothing to do with sin.
    5)thanksgiving offerings - these have nothing to do with sin.
    6) firstborn offering - these have nothing to do with sin.
    7) tithe offerings - these have nothing to do with sin.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 'The extermination of the Amalekites, including infants and children, for what their forefathers had done 400 years prior.'

    If there was foreknowledge of what crimes Hitler and other Nazi leaders would perpetrate, would it be right to let them live beyond infancy? Once Hitler and Stalin were babies. We have no knowledge of how a child might develop in life if allowed to mature, but such knowledge is not beyond an omniscient God with understanding of the kind of families and society that will nurture development. It is said of the Amorites in the time of Abraham that their sins had not at that time reached their full measure (Gen.15:16). Judgement came upon them when it did. We don't see with the eyes of God and so are not in a position to judge. What we do know of God, we can know through Christ. It is an act of love to destroy those who will commit acts of gross cruelty. Evil will be destroyed. God will do this.

    Yes, a God of love will combat evil in all its forms.

    I was once an atheist and had studied evolution, but one day I awoke believing in God. Having previously contemplated the non-existence of God, I found it impossible not to believe the opposite. Does the Bible teach that the world was created 6 thousand years ago? No. Does the Bible deny that dinosaurs lived before man? No. Will the wicked suffer for all eternity? No. Does the Bible teach that Jesus was punished by His Father as though guilty for our sins? No. Did He suffer for our sins? Yes. I have written here about why:

    http://bible-study-online.org/jesus_christ_atonement/?page_id=1173

    ('Introduction' - recently posted)

    This is not PST! God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  28. I should allow myself one more comment, for I realize that the above is open to misunderstanding.

    It is wrong to conclude judgments on others when all the facts are unknown. This is the case with the references we read concerning the apparent judgments of God pronounced against certain nations and people in the OT. I give my own position here (see 'Note'):

    http://bible-study-online.org/jesus_christ_atonement/?page_id=1004/#A7

    In my view, explanations for the severe judgments of God as those mentioned above should include a consideration of the nature of the soul.

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If the Scripture has more than one meaning it has no meaning at all. - John Owen

    ReplyDelete