Blog

Why it is important to question the penal substitution theory of the atonement

I have been re-reading one of my favourite Trinitarian Theologians, The Scottish Thomas F Torrance.  Torrance is a real inspiration because for him, his understanding of the Trinity was vital for his work as a parish minister before he became an academic. I always have a slight bias for practitioners!  So why am I so interested in Torrance?  Well for one thing – he was absolutely against the penal substitution atonement theory – because it revealed far more about pagan belief than Christian belief.  Paul. D Molnar, in his book on Torrance’s theology put it like this:

Torrance believed that a false view of Christ’s humanity lay behind the common mistake in Evangelical theologies of the atonement, wherein it is asserted that God is reconciled to the world rather than that the world is reconciled to God.  He regarded the idea that, in the atonement, God is reconciled as a sub-Christian reversion to older pagan ideas of a God who needs to be appeased and placated.  God is always the subject of reconciliation, not the object.

I couldn’t agree more, because this thinking colludes with the thoughts that distort and projects them onto God, the God of Love and non-dualistic thinking.  This matters, because there have been a number of new books coming out recently in support of penal substitution as an atonement theory – which in a over-simplified summary understands that Jesus died on the Cross because God the Creator upstairs in heaven, was fermentingly angry, and who could only be appeased by taking this out on Jesus Christ in physical violence, (hence why Feminist theologians have called this heavenly child abuse).

As with the discussion in the previous blog entry – this form of projection and sanitisation of the thoughts that distort for me utterly undermine the principles of the New Covenant and take it right back to an Eye for an Eye of the Hebrew Covenant.  So it is really important to question this atonement theory as it has been used to justify and collude with  anger, oppression, exclusion, slavery, sexism, violence – the list is endless.  Quite why the Evangelical Alliance now insist that you have to believe this to be part of the Evangelical Alliance is beyond me.   How do you reconcile this approach with the loving God?

The truth be known – none of the theories if the atonement stack up that well – except in my opinion the work of Torrence and Alison – who both articulated the view that Christ died for our anger – not Gods – because according to them – if it were about God’s anger – we would have strayed into pagan temple worship.

POSTED 15.06.10 BY: ianmobsby | Comments (7)

7 Responses to “Why it is important to question the penal substitution theory of the atonement”

  1. On June 15th, 2010 at 1:22 pm James_Vincent said:

    People have some weird ideas about God.

    I’m tempted just to leave that as my contribution, but it sounds more-than-slightly-arrogant, so I’ll try and explain my thoughts! The weirdest idea is (in my opinion) that we understand Him and His reasons. Christ wasn’t that specific on the details of why he was there, as he kept using the unspecific “because the Father loves you unconditionally, and wants you to share and embrace it”. No hint at all as to why.

    As one of those annoying people who questions everything, this leaves endless possibilities for reflection. But Christ’s “commandant” (my phrase, and for lack of a better one!) was to go and spread the Word: go and spread God’s love. Deliberation and reflection is all well and good, particularly if – like me – you’re addicted to doing it, but it’s more of an optional extra. So it’s sad when groups and people like the Evangelical Alliance say you must believe something that is only a theory and not an especially relevant to the main point of living as a Christian. Well that’s what I think anyway…

  2. On June 15th, 2010 at 4:46 pm Nicolas said:

    Thanks Ian for posting this. I left my thinking on this unfinished after Easter ended and I do not know how this relates to Torrance. I have also started to feel unsure about posting things here but:

    My “understanding” (if that is at all possible) of the crucifixion has something very deterministic about it. Do not get this wrong: I do not believe that Jesus was forsaken or forgotten by God when put up on the cross. But leave someone without a sin, a “prophet” who disturbs the existing powers, and those same powers will always want to kill him. Given the world Jesus lived in (and in which we are still living), what alternatives to his death would there have been? Even today, would people of this world make a hero, a king out of someone who teaches what Jesus taught? More often than not, those people end up in jail, beaten or assassinated. Christ’s death to me shows what is wrong about the world – unchecked powers, which is also the extension of human sinfulness. This is where I see Jesus’ death as predictable. And perhaps part of this is anger, but I think it is rather the whole condition of sinfulness. Sinfulness includes damaging cognitions, unchecked emotions and destructive acts.

    Through his resurrection however, Jesus brings us hope: whatever happens to us, including death, this can be overcome. It also brings us inspiration and understanding that God is there in our suffering – even if we are to drink of his cup and die for our beliefs/faith. But most importantly, it brings us salvation, because by believing in the resurrection, we automatically believe that we are not limited by our own sinfulness and that of others. Our condition, i.e. our cognitions, emotions and acts are not in total control of our fate anymore. God is.

  3. On June 16th, 2010 at 8:59 am ianmobsby said:

    Thanks James and Nic.

    As you say there are loads of different approaches to the atonement. Each of the gospels, in their passion narrative expresses a different understanding of the significance of the crucifixion.

    My faith, is inspired, by the narrative of the Gospel of St John because in this gospel – there is no sense that the restoration of relationship between humanity and God required that Jesus should be beaten up. In the Gospel of John – Jesus is a strong human being, who gets on the cross and dies quickly – no emphasis as with other gospels of having to suffer for God. The emphasis here then is that Jesus is being killed by all unjust political systems, by the systems that hold people in bondage, so again Jesus dies because of the world and all its institutionalisation and abuse – so for our anger and our brokenness in a world distorted by its sin and brokenness – so Jesus’ death then is in the love of God who seeks to draw all things back into restored relationship with the divine (2 Corinthians 4&5).

    So this is completely different from the justification of an angry God – in fact the exact opposite.

    Nic – it is important that we don’t rush too quickly to the resurrection, given that everything you have said is true – because it is important to see how deep and how wide the love of God is to die for us out of love seeking to breakdown the systems that hold humanity in captivity – including our very selves – who often are distorted by the thoughts and actions that we hold that distort us and others.

  4. On June 17th, 2010 at 8:41 pm Aaron Kennedy said:

    Nic. Please keep posting. You have great insights.

  5. On July 5th, 2010 at 2:28 pm Matt said:

    It’s interesting how this article seems to be swimming about in quotes, thoughts and philosophy without convincing people of your point by using the Bible. Possibly because it would be extremely hard to do so.

    You say this idea of atonement utterly undermines the New Covenant. Would this be the same New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus just before he goes to the cross with the words “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22). Would this be the same New covenant where Jesus takes the place of the passover lamb, the same passover lamb which saved the Israelites from God’s wrath? The same covenant inauguration followed by Christs’ submission to drink the cup of God’s wrath? I think you’ll find the Bible far more explanatory than Thomas F Torrance.

    Do you really have such a small view of sin and evil that you think God wouldn’t be angry? How can you say you love justice without a real hatred of Sin?

    The ‘eye for an eye’ Hebrew covenant as you put it shows us what is needed to be come into God presence ie: sin atoned for, judgement on sin, shown in death. Your article seemed to imply the naïve yet popular wrathful OT God, and Gentle hippy Love God of the NT view, which obscures God’s faithful consistency throughout the Bible.

    “How do you reconcile this with a loving God” ? you ask . Very easily. Because the idea of God as love comes from the Bible and very explicitly in 1 John. Which also has this to say: This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins.” Notice how it says ‘for our sins’, not for our anger…

    I apologise if I’ve misunderstood any of your arguments, but if Christ did not suffer the wrath of God as you say, then the only answer is we must take that penalty for our sins. That Christ and The father are co-authors and willingly together provide this way for people like us to be saved from the judgement we deserve, by taking it on himself, though he was utterly innocent –that’s love. God neither inflicts something on Jesus he is not complicit too, no does Jesus, act in a way to twist God’s arm. It is the divine plan of God in three persons acting out to save a people that cannot save themselves. It also answers the conundrum in Exodus 34 v6-7 – How God can be Just and punish sin, yet loving and not punish sinners.

    “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.”

    And if Christ died and was not dying for the sin of believers, what a wasted and needless death. Why would God let that happen.? It’s this view which seems to suit the child abuse accusation.

    Without penal substitution, there is no gospel. As Jesus says in John’s gospel: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” and again in John’s gospel says of himself: “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.” The overwhelming joy is that God in the person of Christ would do this for those he loves that we might be free from the rightful judgement on sin. Free to love him and each other as his children, in the power of his Spirit. Is there any more incredibly good news, or any other reason to be a Christian?

  6. On July 5th, 2010 at 9:12 pm artbizness said:

    Hi Matt.

    Thanks for commenting on our blog. It’s a new blog, so we’re still getting over the novelty of people finding us and getting involved in the conversation! However, we are very glad that you did find us. :-)

    I’m sure Ian will answer you in due course, but I thought I’d weigh in with a response of my own.

    The ides of propitiation, expiation and atonement are all ones that I am very familiar with, having converted to Christianity within a church that believed these doctrines very strongly.

    However, I came to see that the idea of atonement is an interpretation of the Bible passages that you refer to, and not actually a very helpful one. Ian’s article is a summary of a response to the issues you raise – it’s not possible here to go into the nuances of what Torrance has written, but I think Ian has laid out a pretty good introduction.

    It’s perfectly possible to believe in Jesus (the one who says: “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.”) without the need to frame that sacrifice in terms of penal substitution.

    When you say “Do you really have such a small view of sin and evil that you think God wouldn’t be angry? How can you say you love justice without a real hatred of Sin?” I would suggest that your concepts of sin and anger are extremely loaded, and that myself and Ian would have a different understanding to you of what those things are, and their place in the experience of how God operates. Again, I would suggest that these things are a matter of interpretation, not immutable Biblical fact as you seem to imply.

    You also say “…if Christ did not suffer the wrath of God as you say, then the only answer is we must take that penalty for our sins.” I think that’s a huge leap, and not one that you could readily justify, even biblically.

    I appreciate that your points have a lot of back-story and theology to them, but I would equally say that so do Ian’s – and not as “extremely hard” to justify from a Biblical point of view as you suggest. There are plenty of writings that address the passages you refer to (I would suggest Walter Brueggeman and Walter Wink to start with).

    However, I would like to emphasize that neither you or I have the monopoly on God’s truth, and that at the end of the day it takes a community to hear God, not a theology.

  7. On July 26th, 2010 at 12:36 pm Ian Mobsby said:

    Responding to Matt’s points.

    I argue against penal substitution as an atonement theory because this is biblically based – as Steve Chalke wrote convincingly in his book on the subject, and many others have too. The argument against the penal substitution atonement theory begins in the Gospels – Where Jesus gave the new commandment to Love God, love our selves and love others as ourselves – with a stress on loving your neighbour. Expanded later in the Ministry of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians Chapter 5.

    Your critique – never is the cup in the last supper called the cup of God’s wrath – your interpretation – which I don’t think is right. The significance of Christ’s death is a mystery – with many atonement theories – and there is much evidence in the Gospels that Christ is dying for our anger not God’s particularly in the Gospel of John.

    Sorry – I am not going to rise to your ungrounded comment that I turn to theologians rather than the Bible – this is just rude. If you read Torrance you will see that it is precisely that he understands the Bible that he questions penal substitution as being pagan, because it dumbs down on Trinitarian theology -at the heart of the faith and Creeds. Without starting from Christ’s New Commandment – we end up with distortions. Christ’s death is expressed differently in each Gospel – the significance of the Passion is portrayed differently. In John’s Gospel (if you read it for what it is rather than projecting your views on to the text) emphasises a strong Jesus – not being beaten up by Father God upstairs – who quickly gets on the Cross and dies. This gives rise to atonement theories that Christ’s significance was to stand up to the Powers that distort, A God that died for our liberation from unjust political, religious and other oppressive systems including the Temple establishment who cannot see that Jesus is God, because they think they know God better than God knows God.

    You could argue that they were expecting the Messiah to bring a form of penal substitution – awaiting the Messiah to come and defeat the Romans and suffer for Israel’s sins, and this was not God’s intention – as the Missio Dei – Mission of God was a love mission to restore all people’s into restored relationship with God through Love – this is miles away from a wrathful God and many many Christians think that Penal Substitution does not express God’s intentions at the crucifixion and resurrection well.

    Your quotes for the Good Shepherd can be read both ways – and I would argue can equally be read in non-penal-substitutional ways.

    Equally your quotes from John can be interpreted as Jesus’ sacrifice being for Love – in fact I would argue it is easier to interpret these texts from what the atonement theory I am suggested rather than penal substitution.

    Why are you so fixed on anger? Why must God be angry? I think Jesus wept over Jerusalem and humanity – and became a servant to challenge the powers – that the thoughts than distort – fear, anger, pride and the rest – can be overcome through the thoughts that give life – love, peace, humility and the fruits of the Spirit.

    I don’t see Jesus getting angry with prostitutes, tax collectors, slaves, soldiers and a whole host of sinners – know the times he gets angry – is with those who are angry….. and try to use religion to dress up injustice and anger – projections and abuses of God.

    God is Love – God is not Anger – Yes I think God dislikes sin intensely – but wants to love humanity into change.

    Christians who hold onto an angry God then justify the need for an Angry Church – and all the terrible things the church has done in the name of God – when it had nothing to do with God…. so it starts with us – and for me – it is a stand against anger, pride and fear and a call to follow Jesus in love – and questioning everything like penal substitution which many of us believe distorts who Jesus was, and what Jesus calls us to be and do as Christians. So rather than dumbing down with the bible – it seeks to be obedient to the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer.
    Believing in penal substitution does not make you a better Christian or more bible believing – I would argue – that with out the empowerment of God’s love, we are lost a broken pot, a hollow gong.
    It’s precisely because I read the bible – that I believe penal substitution to be an outdated and inadequate understanding…