It seems to me that the teaching of the Scriptures relative to the atonement is that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners. The Scriptures also teach that Jesus was sinless and thus not deserving of the punishment. Nevertheless, he volunteered for it, and the Father accepted his punishment in the place of those who did deserve it. The problem with this, as I have been pointing out in my series on the PST, is that it is never right to punish an innocent person in place of the guilty. Theologians have jumped through a lot of hoops to try to argue that it is right and proper and not a miscarriage of justice, but I haven't found one yet who had a satisfactory resolution to the problem.
Let me illustrate the problem. Let's say that a teacher tells his class that he is going to step out in the hall for a moment and talk with a parent. He tells the class that they had better be quiet and read their assignment until he returns. As soon as he leaves, the class erupts. People are talking, running around the room, shooting spitballs, and so on. Every one of the students, except for the teacher's son, is misbehaving. The teacher returns to the class and is very angry. He says that the class will be punished for disobeying his instructions. Instead of punishing the entire class, however, he decides to punish one person as a representative of the class. He asks for volunteers. The only one who volunteers is his son, the one who did not misbehave. The teacher asks his son if he was guilty of violating his instructions to be quiet and read his assignment. The son says: "No, I did exactly as you instructed." The teacher, nevertheless, agrees to punish his son as the representative of the class. The son comes forward and receives three "licks" from a paddle. The teacher's anger over the class' disobedience is now placated and the whole class is forgiven.
I have several questions:
1. Did the teacher act justly?
2. What purpose did punishing his innocent son serve?
3. Why couldn't the teacher forgive the class without paddling anyone?
4. Did the son share culpability with the class simply because he was a member of the class?
Technically, though, doesn't PST go a step beyond the analogy in this post?
ReplyDeleteSaying that the son is already in the class implies that he is on the same level as the rest of the students. But in the Christian story Jesus wasn't on the level.
It's more like the teacher walks back in, finds all of the students going crazy, then calls his son in to the room. At that point he punishes his son for the activities of the classroom. This, most certainly, would be considered a miscarriage of justice.
I think you could actually love Jesus if he paid for all our sins and we all get to have eternal bliss, period. Nothing required of us, nothing owed to him because of his gift, no need to feel guilty, he was happy to do it.
ReplyDeleteThat's different from- accept this gift or else burn forever.
It's like your aunt giving you a gift, then getting mad cause you didn't seem grateful enough, and you have to wear the gift every Sunday or she'll be unhappy with you, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat's not a gift. The people you really like are those who give something to you because they like you and want to give you something. They don't check back later to make sure you're using it. They put it out of their mind.
I'm not as persuaded as you are that the substitutionary, much less the penal substitutionary, understanding of the atonement is prominent in the New Testament, if indeed it is present.
ReplyDeletePaul's view seems to be focused on Jesus' exodus from the present age into the age to come, and Christians' connection with him allowing them to at least provisionally cross over with him. Hebrews focuses on sacrifice, but the sacrifice seems to purify the heavenly tabernacle of the impurity caused by human sins so that humans can enter the heavenly realm and draw near to God.
Be that as it may, I agree with your assessment that the notion of transferring guilt to another by a legal fiction is immoral and profoundly disturbing!
James, I'll let Ken respond to you re: Paul's view and the tone of the NT in general, as I know he has opinions about it. I'll simply offer this: The doctrinal points insisted upon by today's evangelicals - PST, salvific exclusivism, eternal damnation for everyone outside the fold - reflect what most Christians have believed for most of the past 2,000 years. As a liberal Christian scholar, you'll probably disagree with me; most liberal and progressive Christians I encounter online do, but, so far, not one has been able to offer me any contradictory evidence. Until the early modern period, whenever anyone has tried to take a broader, more inclusive view, they've either been marginalized (e.g., some of the early Church fathers) or eliminated (the Albigensians).
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments. As you know, I used to be a conservative evangelical Christian and there is little doubt that for the conservative, the Scriptures teach penal substitution. They are the ones I am focusing on. My argument is not with folks like yourself.
However, it seems to me that they are right in how they interpret the NT. I think Leon Morris in The Cross in the NT and The Apostolic Preaching of the Crossmakes a very strong exegetical case for the idea of Jesus' death being a propitiation and for it being substitutional.
Geds,
ReplyDeleteI think that is an excellent analogy.
As Geds pointed out, your analogy is flawed. Christ was not on the same level as the students. He is our father, and we his children.
ReplyDeleteSuppose instead that you have a room full of 10 kids who are all siblings (or members of a sports team). They are getting increasingly out of control, and the teacher watching them is getting angrier and angrier. Just before she explodes, the father of the kids (or the coach of the team) walks in and realizes how bad the situation is. He quickly takes the teacher aside, and says "I'm so sorry, these are my kids". She erupts and takes out her wrath on him in front of the whole class; with him hanging his head in shame. The class goes quiet. When it's over, and the teacher has calmed down, the father (or coach) turns to the kids and says "never do that again".
You see, children's theory of justice is innately retributive, and children experience substitutionary expiation all the time. I don't know why you insist on pretending it's unnatural. It's the most natural thing in the world, and it's easy enough to test empirically.
If it's so repulsive to our innate morals, you have to ask yourself A) why is it still the way that kids and parents act, and B) why did everyone for the first 1800 years of Christianity accept it as being common sense?
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the analogy is flawed. If you read carefully what all these defenders of the PST are saying you will see that they say that Jesus bears guilt as a result of being a man. Somehow his adoption of humanity resulted in him being identified with sinners. That is the reason why he was incarnated.
In your scenario, the coach or the father is disciplined BECAUSE he has some responsibility or culpability for how his children or players behave. He should have taught them better. Thus, he is really guilty of wrongdoing.
YOu see there is no way around it, in order to justly punish a person, that person must bear some culpability for the crime for which he is being punished. Either Jesus does bear culpability in which case the PST is just but it is not vicarious because he is suffering for his own wrongdoing or Jesus does not bear culpability in which case it is not just to punish him.
Joshua: As Geds pointed out, your analogy is flawed. Christ was not on the same level as the students. He is our father, and we his children.
ReplyDeleteY'know what's weird? The way you agreed with me in order to say the exact opposite of what I said.
They are getting increasingly out of control, and the teacher watching them is getting angrier and angrier. Just before she explodes, the father of the kids (or the coach of the team) walks in and realizes how bad the situation is. He quickly takes the teacher aside, and says "I'm so sorry, these are my kids". She erupts and takes out her wrath on him in front of the whole class; with him hanging his head in shame. The class goes quiet. When it's over, and the teacher has calmed down, the father (or coach) turns to the kids and says "never do that again".
That scenario doesn't make a bit of sense. The father has already walked in, seen a problem, and apologized. The teacher's wrath, then, doesn't have to be spent on the father to get the appropriate response.
Also, as Ken says: "In your scenario, the coach or the father is disciplined BECAUSE he has some responsibility or culpability for how his children or players behave. He should have taught them better. Thus, he is really guilty of wrongdoing."
are saying you will see that they say that Jesus bears guilt as a result of being a man
ReplyDeleteThey also all insist that PST would not work unless Christ were sinless and on a level with God. Since you ignore that, your analogy is invalid.
the coach or the father is disciplined BECAUSE he has some responsibility or culpability for how his children or players behave.
I can see why you would want to believe that, but it makes no sense. Suppose that the coach had taken all appropriate measures to discipline and warn his team, but they still act up? If you want to place the culpability on the coach, you're implicitly arguing for a world where the coach removes the free will of his team and controls every movement of their limbs and lips.
Don't you see that you are committing exactly the same error that accuse PST of committing? Under what conditions would a person's coach or teacher not be held culpable for the child's actions? Apparently to you, it is perfectly OK to punish anyone simply for having an authority relationship to another person?
This is a typical atheist demand -- they demand that God be a cosmic rapist and control all of our actions, else they say that culpability is on God. God should have "taught us better", so we bear no culpability for our sin. Again, I know why you want to believe it, but you can't argue that this theory comes from our "innate moral intuitions".
That scenario doesn't make a bit of sense. The father has already walked in, seen a problem, and apologized. The teacher's wrath, then, doesn't have to be spent on the father to get the appropriate response.
I think you're still seeing this through a utilitarian lens. What do you mean by "appropriate response"? The wrath needs to be spent; the evil needs to be inflicted; that's the point of retributive justice.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteIt 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. These are two different processes.
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 depressing 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”. I think that idea resonates with everyone.
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.
I think you're still seeing this through a utilitarian lens. What do you mean by "appropriate response"? The wrath needs to be spent; the evil needs to be inflicted; that's the point of retributive justice.
ReplyDeleteWhy, precisely, does the wrath "need to be spent?"
Let's say I'm the teacher. I'm frustrated as all get-out by my bunch of misbehaving students. Their father walks in, says, "Holy crap, I'm sorry you have to deal with this," then turns to the kids and says, "Hey, shut up and listen to your teacher. I raised you better than this."
And they do. What need do I have to remain angry?
Moreover, I don't know if you've ever been in an argument, but yelling at someone doesn't actually usually help the situation. If I start yelling the father's most likely response is to get defensive, especially if in yelling he perceives me as attacking him for something he has not done and/or badmouthing his children. So he'll probably just yell right back at me and nothing will ever get accomplished.
Ergo, yelling is a pointless exercise. And if the kids are misbehaving I should be working with their father to try to bring the situation under control. But the ultimate culpability should be borne by the kids. Whether I punish them or their father takes over is immaterial. It's not correct or useful for me to take out my frustrations with the children on the father.
Also, this argument:
I can see why you would want to believe that, but it makes no sense. Suppose that the coach had taken all appropriate measures to discipline and warn his team, but they still act up? If you want to place the culpability on the coach, you're implicitly arguing for a world where the coach removes the free will of his team and controls every movement of their limbs and lips.
Completely negates your previous arguments. It's apparently okay to place culpability on the father/coach as long as it fits your analogy.
And this:
This is a typical atheist demand -- they demand that God be a cosmic rapist and control all of our actions, else they say that culpability is on God.
Is not so much the case. We look at the Bible and see that it shows a god who is a "cosmic rapist" and who demands perfection from people while not following any of those rules. So the culpability is on god, specifically for being a cosmic hypocrite.
It isn’t that the language of “righteoused” isn’t there, as in Romans 5, where Christ dies for us sinners (saving us from “the wrathful punishment”). It’s that Paul leaves it behind to favor instead a language of participation, where we die with Christ, belong to him, are in him, have his spirit dwelling in us.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the judicial passages seem to draw on traditions already in place, while the participationist line seems original and dear to Paul.
Then Christ’s death, Paul says, does wipe out transgressions. But still more, sharing in it provides the believer a way of escape from the old creation--from bondage to sin, to the Lord’s instead.
And Paul forces “righteoused” to mean not “declared innocent,” but instead “transferred from one state to another.” (Romans 6:7, Galatians 2:15-20)
Finally, Paul doesn’t mention guilt at all, nor repentance, nor forgiveness. The way in is dying with Christ and being one person with him, a new person.
So argues E. P. Sanders in his little book on Paul. (74-76) He may have read deeper than does Morris.
The negative side of salvation is that we enter God’s kingdom upon Jesus’ return. The positive side is that we participate in the new creation fully then, but in large and generous part now, as die with Christ and live in him and he in us.
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteYou say: The wrath needs to be spent; the evil needs to be inflicted; that's the point of retributive justice.
It is the point of retributive justice BUT the punishment must be inflicted on the one who committed the evil otherwise it is not just. In your scenario, it just seems that the anger needs to be vented and it doesn't matter who is the recipient. It would be no different than kicking my dog because of what the neighbor did to me.
The only reason why the various theologians who defend the PST think it is just is because either they think that man's sin has been imputed to Jesus and thus he bears responsibility or they think that Jesus when he assumed a human nature he assumed the condemnation that humanity was already under.
James,
ReplyDeleteI think you may be defending some type of Participatory Model of the Atonement. I definitely have fewer problems with it than the PST but it is NOT the model held by most evangelicals. Evangelical Christianity is the focus of my blog.
We need to look into the purpose for causing someone to suffer (i.e. being punished) for his misdeeds. 1) Is it to exact retribution as C. S. Lewis argued? Retribution can never be an ethical motive for causing someone to suffer. Retaliation is a barbaric principle for justice. 2) Is it to serve as a deterrent to others? Deterrence is using people for an end which can be used to justify using people for almost anything. 3) Is it to reform or teach the person to be better? I would think this is the only justification that can be defended ethically for causing someone to suffer (i.e. being punished) for his misdeeds, and it must be appropriate enough to help reform the person. If in reforming him it helps to deter others then that is a by-product of trying to reform that person. But forgiveness can be used to reform someone for then the guilty person might feel a sense of obligation out of love to the one who forgave him.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that there is no connection between forgiving a person and punishing a person. We've all heard of people who have forgiven criminals even though they have not been punished, and we have heard of people who have not forgiven criminals even though they have been punished.
It is the point of retributive justice BUT the punishment must be inflicted on the one who committed the evil otherwise it is not just
ReplyDeleteI can't tell if you even believe that retribution is just when inflicted on the one who committed the evil, so it's hard to tell where you're getting your measuring stick for what is just or not. You're not describing any Biblical sense of justice, and you're not describing the concept of justice that children are endowed with, so you are basically sharing your own hopes or opinions. Or else you're projecting modern jurisprudence (which isn't retributive anyway, so it's a moot point) onto the past.
As we've seen, children's only concept of justice is retributive, and children have no problem with their parents stepping in and accepting punishment in the child's stead. And the concept of substitutionary expiation is central to the Bible.
Retribution can never be an ethical motive for causing someone to suffer. Retaliation is a barbaric principle for justice.
By calling it barbaric and observing that it's the way things were done in the past, don't you undermine Ken's argument about PST being repulsive to our innate morals? It seems that retributive justice is what our ancestors innately turned to, and it has taken modern culture and jurisprudence to override this innate moral impulse. The human genome hasn't evolved that much since the "barbaric times" of 200 years ago, so it's safe to say that this barbarism is still "innate".
I didn't mean to defend any theory of atonement, but did mean to suggest that McGrath, the real James let's call him, might be right that Paul (the founder of Christianity, if there is one) doesn't really--deep down anyway--subscribe to the PST.
ReplyDeleteThat is, I was attempting exegesis, or borrowing some from Sanders.
It does seem that evangelicals might be twice wrong--their PST both immoral and if not anti-scriptural, only precariously based in scripture.
Retributive punishment can, I think, be richly deserved and entirely appropriate. In an ideal world, for instance, Richard Cheney would serve some time for the suffering he wrongfully and illegally inflicted, (But I doubt if this would serve to deter higher-ups in future administrations from emulating them--doubt if there’d be much of a deterrent rationale for this punishment.)
ReplyDeleteFurther, “reform and teaching” aren’t punishment at all. Punishment is by definition an unpleasantness of some sort and other, and it’s an accident if reformation or edification take that turn.
Ken, you have devoted a significant portion of your life to pointing out the errors of PST. Are there several evangelical authors and works that typify the PST view? You mentioned Leon Morris. Would he be a good place to
ReplyDeletestart reading the evangelical viewpoint you find so distasteful? Also, what are a few of the prominent NT texts that you feel teaches PST. I'm
coming into this discussion late and would be indebted to you for some direction
here. Thanks
Hi Ken, just one more question before I drift off for the night. I recognize that your history is with evangelical Christianity, and in some part that mixes into your
ReplyDeletemotivation to expose EC as a harmful religion. But in a recent blog you stated that you felt that conservative, evangelical theologians had done a decent job of exegeting the biblical texts that teach PST. Should I gather from this that your primary beef is with the Bible itself, since admittedly evangelicals are simply trying to explain and teach what the Bible states? I guess I'd be more upset with them if they were deliberately trying to misrepresent what the Bible says. Is that a fair observation. You reject the biblical message and EC's are dangerous because they believe and teach the Bible?
David,
ReplyDeleteYes my problem is with the Bible itself. I believe the Bible clearly teaches the PST. I disagree with liberal scholars such as James McGrath who do not believe that is what the Bible teaches. Evangelicals are consistent in holding to the PST because they believe the Bible to be divinely inspired.
Yes, Leon Morris' works are a good example of the evangelical exegesis that underlies the PST.
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteI believe the Bible teaches retributive justice ("eye for eye"). If you study the basic principles of retributive justice, you will find that its first principle is that the wrongdoer deserves to be punished because of the wrong that he/she committed. Thus, to substitute an innocent person in place of the guilty person is a violation of the first principle of retributive justice.
The reason why you find what appears to be innocents suffering in the Bible is because of the primitive concept of "collective culpability." Thus, in Paul's mind the whole human race is culpable for Adam's sin.
You say: children's only concept of justice is retributive, and children have no problem with their parents stepping in and accepting punishment in the child's stead
I would agree that retributive justice seems to be instinctive in man. Whenever someone does us wrong, we instinctively want to "get even." I think this is a primitive sense of justice which modern society is moving away from. However, it is the justice seen in the Bible (God says" "Vengenance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord"). The PST is based upon this primitive sense of justice.
As for parents sometimes suffering punishment in place of their children, that is because parents have some measure of culpability for how their minor children behave. It is their responsibility to see that their minor children act properly. If you try to make this applicable to God in the form of Jesus stepping in to take man's punishment, then you are admitting that God has some culpability in how his children have acted.
does a six your old who has picked up filthy swears no what swearing or sin is? is it logical for the father of the 6 year old to cut himself everytime the 6 year old utters a swear word?
ReplyDeleteJames: "In an ideal world, for instance, Richard Cheney would serve some time for the suffering he wrongfully and illegally inflicted ..."
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world, the political left would get over its obsession with Bush and Cheney.
@Ken - Thanks for the response; I am feeling more comfortable about your position now.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that retributive justice seems to be instinctive in man. Whenever someone does us wrong, we instinctively want to "get even." I think this is a primitive sense of justice which modern society is moving away from.
I would agree with this. This includes the innate acceptance of retribution paid in another's stead, which was common throughout primitive societies, and seems instinctive.
As for parents sometimes suffering punishment in place of their children, that is because parents have some measure of culpability for how their minor children behave
This is my only remaining disagreement. IMO, you're painting a very cynical picture of parenting that is foreign to human nature. Parents often go to great extremes to protect their children from just retribution, normally out of love. This is a common theme in stories and movies, and is deeply human -- you even see parents going to jail to protect adult children. Only rarely do parents step in and catch expiation because of any parental culpability.
@mrsonic - If there were some situation where the kid would have knives thrown at him for cussing (?!?), then, yes, it would be perfectly normal for a father to jump in and take a knife to protect his son. Nothing could be more instinctive.
ReplyDeleteSeems like a really wacky scenario, though. I don't know of anywhere in ancient society or in the Bible where cutting someone was considered proportional retribution for cussing. Do you know of anyone who cuts people for cussing?
your god remember enjoyed this "wacky" scenario. remember that he was slapped , spat on , whiped and then crucified. the one difference is that the father in the above scenario didn't use intermediaries to inflict pain upon himself , your god did.
ReplyDeleteYou said:Parents often go to great extremes to protect their children from just retribution, normally out of love. This is a common theme in stories and movies, and is deeply human -- you even see parents going to jail to protect adult children.
ReplyDeleteAll of that is true, but you are looking at it only from the parents or the child's point of view. You must look at it from the judge's point of view (the one who is willing to accept substitute punishment) to see if justice is being served.
ReplyDeleteAll of that is true, but you are looking at it only from the parents or the child's point of view. You must look at it from the judge's point of view (the one who is willing to accept substitute punishment) to see if justice is being served.
I don't think I'm ignoring the offended party. The teacher who yells at the coach doesn't then say, "You know what? I really need to take my anger out on the child, since you technically weren't culpable". Her wrath has been dissipated on someone she accepted as a substitute.
It seems to me that this scenario plays out thousands of times every day around the world.