Theories of atonement

[redleghunter]

The Bible isn't really concerned with how the atonement works. When reading Romans I've been increasingly intrigued by the lesser known recapitulation theory of atonement, but I'm still thinking about it.

Once again, an element to the whole.

 

[redleghunter]

The issue with most substitutionary-esque proof texts is that they fail to show it is precisely a penal substitution in view here.

What is the penalty for sin?

 

[redleghunter]

Again, I keep thinking of more...

"...he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressor" (Isa. 53:12).

St Clement of Rome agrees with you:
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
St. Clement of Rome

He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering, anti acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed. He bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that [on His own account] He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction. But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; [every] man has wandered in his own way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins, while He in the midst of His sufferings openeth not His mouth. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away; who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth. For the transgressions of my people was He brought down to death. And I will give the wicked for His sepulchre, and the rich for His death? because He did no iniquity, neither was guile found in His mouth. And the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes. If ye make an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed. And the Lord is pleased to relieve Him of the affliction of His soul, to show Him light, and to form Him with understanding, to justify the Just One who ministereth well to many; and the Himself shall carry their sins. On this account He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered." And again He saith, "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All that see Me have derided Me; they have spoken with their lips; they have wagged their head, [saying] He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him, let Him save Him, since He delighteth in Him." Ye see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace ?

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
St. Clement of Rome ​

 

[redleghunter]

The basic problem of PSA is how it understands sacrifice. According to satisfaction theory, the sacrificial system in the Bible consisted of offering up something of value in order to make atonement or propitiation for sins and wrongdoings. So Christ, on our behalf, offered up the most valuable thing ever - his own life - which was wll-pleasing to the Father. And this sacrifice then becomes the source and fount of forgiveness, whereby God can forgive us.

What exactly was being satisfied? What are the wages of sin?

PSA on the other hand, primarily understands the sacrificial system in the Bible as the imposition of punishment.

If Christ did not die for us, then what would be our ultimate state?

This is a seemlingly small, but crucial difference. Christ's sacrifice then becomes a legal fiction, where Christ is punished as if he had been us, so that we go unpunished.

Again what are the wages of sin?

You can proof-text all you want, but PSA and (Anselmian) satisfaction theory have a fundamentally different understanding of what sacrifice is.

It's not a proof text. It's an embedded expositional fact. Isaiah 53 is the prophecy of the fulfillment of the redemption of sinners which becomes the reality in the New Testament.

Unfortunately many focus on "penal" as an angry God punishing Christ Jesus. Penal substitution is Christ taking the due punishment we deserve as the wages of sin is death.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Is it wrong that my autocorrect keeps wanting to spell "Penile Substitution"?

 

[redleghunter]

Is it wrong that my autocorrect keeps wanting to spell "Penile Substitution"?

Google PSA. You might get some good advice on what age your physician should be monitoring it, some good advice on food and supplements.

 

[Mark_Sam]

What exactly was being satisfied? What are the wages of sin?

Well, God is the one being satisfied. Or more precisely God's wrath, justice and honour.
And I know very well that the wages of sin is death, as the good St. Paul writes.

If Christ did not die for us, then what would be our ultimate state?

If not for Christ's sacrifice for us, we would all be damned and lost, and we would all suffer the wages of sin, which is death.

Unfortunately many focus on "penal" as an angry God punishing Christ Jesus. Penal substitution is Christ taking the due punishment we deserve as the wages of sin is death.

The problem is the concept of taking someone else's punishment is foreign to both the sacrificial and legal systems of the Bible, and most decent judicial systems throughout the world. Yes, Christ died for us, he suffered for us, he was even disciplined for us.

The problem is that in PSA, the Cross is a "downwards action", where the Father punishes the Son. The Cross is something God regards as evil, something to be punished. Or it becomes a legal fiction where the Father pretends that his Son is evil and that sinners are holy, punishing one and rewarding the other. (So you see that PSA doctrine of sacrifice is ultimately connected to the Reformed doctrine of justification, but that's a whole other topic.)

While in satisfaction theory, the Cross is an "upwards action", where the Son satisfies the wrath of the Father. This ultimate self-giving and self-sacrifice to the Father becomes a source and fount of forgiveness, as God on the account of Christ can forgive sinners (i.e. to pardon without expecting something in return). While in PSA there is no true forgiveness, as God expects something in return for pardoning sinners - it's just that Christ gave it instead.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, God is the one being satisfied.

Yes, this is true with PSA as well.

Or more precisely God's wrath, justice and honour.

You just defined PSA and satisfaction would only address the honor.

And I know very well that the wages of sin is death, as the good St. Paul writes.

Indeed and Jesus paid that wage for us.

If not for Christ's sacrifice for us, we would all be damned and lost, and we would all suffer the wages of sin, which is death.

Yes yet another tenant of PSA you affirm.

The problem is the concept of taking someone else's punishment is foreign to both the sacrificial and legal systems of the Bible, and most decent judicial systems throughout the world. Yes, Christ died for us, he suffered for us, he was even disciplined for us.

This is a contradiction of what you just affirmed above. You affirm Jesus takes our due punishment, God's wrath and justice. Yet you are now saying what you affirm is "foreign" to Scriptures. Now "judicial systems throughout the world" really is not relevant unless you believe Almighty God is subject to them. Which brings up the historic church debate of 'ex lex and sub lego' which is a whole different subject, but one in which I can see forming opinions.

The problem is that in PSA, the Cross is a "downwards action", where the Father punishes the Son. The Cross is something God regards as evil, something to be punished.

Can you cite any sources which depict the Cross as something evil to be punished?

Or it becomes a legal fiction where the Father pretends that his Son is evil and that sinners are holy, punishing one and rewarding the other. (So you see that PSA doctrine of sacrifice is ultimately connected to the Reformed doctrine of justification, but that's a whole other topic.)

Again can you cite any sources which depicts that "his [sic] Son is evil?"

While in satisfaction theory, the Cross is an "upwards action", where the Son satisfies the wrath of the Father.

In satisfaction atonement there is no mention of the wrath of God being satisfied. Only PSA makes this claim.

Perhaps some information on PSA would be constructive to the conversation:

As we consider the issue of our Lord’s atonement, let us note that Scripture describes what the crucifixion accomplished in a variety of ways. For example, the death of Jesus is described as the ransom paid to God to free us from our bondage to sin and also as the defeat of Satan (Mark 10:45; Col. 2:13–15). Christ even describes His death as the supreme illustration of His love for His friends (John 15:13). However, while we should not forget how the atonement is these things, we must emphasize that the chief reality of the atonement is that it was a penal substitution.

In penal substitution, the penalty that is due to us for our transgression is paid by a substitute, namely, Jesus Christ. The principle of penal substitution undergirds the old covenant sacrificial system. God told Adam that the penalty for sin was death (Gen. 2:16–17). In the old covenant sacrifices, the people placed their hands on the sacrificial animals, thereby identifying with them, and then the animals were put to death (see Lev. 4). This depicted the transfer of sin and guilt from the sinner to the substitute. The sinner could live because the animal died in the sinner’s place, bearing the punishment the sinner deserved.

But since “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4), the animal sacrifices of the old covenant did not effect true atonement. They were types and shadows that pointed to the only true atoning sacrifice, which was offered once for all on Calvary by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (vv. 5–18). This final and only effective act of penal substitution was foreshadowed by the entire old covenant sacrificial system and explicitly predicted in Isaiah 53. The prophet tells us that God laid on the Suffering Servant (Christ) our iniquity (Isa. 53:6)—our sin was transferred to Him in the atonement. He was pierced and crushed for our iniquities, “cut off out of the land of the living … for the transgression of my people” (vv. 4–5, 8). In other words, Christ endured the punishment His people deserve in their place. If we trust in Him alone for salvation, we need not fear eternal death, for Jesus bore our sin on the cross so that we will not receive everlasting judgment (v. 10; John 3:16).

Source: Ligonier Ministries​

 

[bling]

I think the answer to this question depends on how we understand the word ransom; is it to be understood metaphorically or literally?

1) If metaphorically, then we need not identify a payee because the NT authors never said to whom the ransom price is paid. We would be overextending the metaphor like saying, "That insight is worth a king's ransom." No one asks to whom the king's ransom is paid.

2) If literally, then it would make sense to point to the captors as the payees, after all, ransoms are paid to captors. Scripture tells us in a number of places that sin, death and the devil are the ‘forces’ that held mankind captive or in bondage. Jesus in assuming human nature vanquished these ‘forces’ on their own territory, which is the sinful flesh. The ransom or price Jesus paid was to be tortured and killed by evil men, acting as Satan's tools. The basic idea is that Jesus delivers Himself into the power of these forces so that He can vanquish these powers on their own turf, so to speak. His power proves greater than theirs. He is a conquering Hero. To use a sports analogy, Jesus is the one that we put on our shoulders and carry off the field in victory.

In 1. When you say: "That insight is worth a king's ransom." You are not saying: “the insight is a ransom payment.”

Saying “worth” is only establish the value while saying “is” means that is what it is, so saying an “insight” is a “ransom” or say My life is a “ransom for many” means there needs to be a kidnapper, a payment, and someone set free.

A lot of times Christ’s disciples took His words to be metaphors, when He was actually talking about His literal things like His cruel death. Jesus is not presenting a parable and the other writers pick up on this reality and restate it. In a ransom scenario you have: a person (mostly children) being held away from his/her home and family, the person being set free, the family paying a huge sacrificial ransom and a kidnapper(s). Christ is not the only one to describe the atonement process as a ransom scenario. Christ refers to the huge sacrificial payment. Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. The Hebrew writer adds the idea of the ransom being used to “set us free…” 1 Peter 1:8 “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold…” Here Peter tells who is freed and from what “ways”, which suggests being captive to trying to do the impossible (follow the Law). John said: Revelation 5:9 “and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,” John is not saying the ransom was paid to God, but ransom men for God.

In 2. I agree with this: “If literally, then it would make sense to point to the captors as the payees, after all, ransoms are paid to captors”. Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

So, who are what is holding us “captive”?

There is comfort in blaming: satan, evil in the world, sin, Adam & Eve, bad luck, parents and anything or anyone else for our rebellious disobedience. Paul said: Romans 7:23 “but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.” So, who is he blaming and who should we blame?

If the captor accepts the ransom, the captor reacts (changes his/her position) and the child being held does not change but would be the same child held or released and the payer of the ransom does not change. If we say “sin, death and/or satan” is the captor, why do they not change with the payment? We know the child set free makes a huge change from being this unbelieving sinner to entering the Kingdom, so does this pre-child (the unbeliever sinner) not mimic the kidnapper?

If Christ won on the cross against sin, death and satan, why are they still around?

If Christ wins through allowing individuals to now: not fear death, have power to keep from sinning and allow individuals to be victorious over satan (through the indwelling Holy Spirit) that is changing the individual nonbelieving sinner and not sin, satan, and death. Paying a “ransom” to sin, death and satan would not change them, making them easier for man to overcome, but paying a huge ransom to the unbeliever and having the unbeliever humbly accept that ransom, would make a huge change in the unbeliever.

There are other issues also:

If the ransom cannot be accepted or rejected by individuals, but was automatically paid to: sin, death and satan than all individuals had their sins atoned for, so everyone is saved, yet we know everyone is not saved, so what happened? (provide biblical support for the specific reason of why this did not happen for all and do not just show it did not happen for all?)

There was atonement in the Old Testament, but it does not fit a payment being made to sin, death or satan?

Peter gives the best “Christ Crucified” sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2), but does not talk about this being to pay satan off. Jesus went to the cross for them and because of them, but they had to accept that fact.

 

[bling]

The Bible isn't really concerned with how the atonement works. When reading Romans I've been increasingly intrigued by the lesser known recapitulation theory of atonement, but I'm still thinking about it.

Atonement is something better experienced than it is intellectually discussed, so what did you feel when you first understood and/or experienced atonement?

 

[ViaCrucis]

For a while I struggled with Satisfaction Theory, but in honesty what I was really struggling with was Penal Substitution, not the language of Satisfaction itself. I still lean heavy on Christus Victor, but I also appreciate Satisfaction Theory more now than I did a number of years ago.

Christ, who by His righteous obedience--even to death--makes satisfaction. Not by becoming the cosmic punching bag for God, as though God needs a punching bag; but rather Christ was righteous and obedient where Adam (and likewise all of us) were unrighteous and disobedient.

This is also in keeping with the language of Recapitulation/Christus Victor: Christ by His obedience undoes Adam's disobedience, and heals Adam (and that means all of us). Christ the New Man, the Second Adam, has wrought righteousness for us who were unrighteous, has conquered sin, death, hell, and the devil, and by His rising from the dead brings life, resurrection from the dead, to Adam's progeny through Himself. So we have peace with God, forgiveness of sins, and life everlasting.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

Not by becoming the cosmic punching bag for God, as though God needs a punching bag;

What does this exactly mean? And what exactly is being satisfied?

 

[Mark_Sam]

Yes yet another tenant of PSA you affirm.

Yes, and this is not unique to PSA.

This is a contradiction of what you just affirmed above. You affirm Jesus takes our due punishment, God's wrath and justice.

Yes but not punishment is not the only way to atone for sin. Christ paid our debt so that we are not punished. The crux here is excactly what manner this payment was made, and in what manner Christ takes our punishment away. Sins (and injustice in general) can be atoned for either by punishment or satisfaction. I would argue that satisfaction is more in line with the covenantal and sacrificial systems of the Bible, as a giving up of something valuable to restore the relationship between parties.

Can you cite any sources which depict the Cross as something evil to be punished?

Maybe it's cheap rhetoric, I'll admit, but it is a logical consequence of PSA. As Christ was sinless, God could not and would not punish him, for that would be unjust (and God is just and cannot act against his own nature). The only solution is to say that mankind's sins and evils were transferred or imputed into the Son. Which means that if God was truly punishing Christ on the Cross, then God would have to regard him as evil or wicked in some way, even if only in a virtual or pretend way. You might say that God punished Christ on account of our sin and therefore he's not punishing Christ per se. But Christ, the blameless one, suffered a punishment. That was Gustaf Aulens main critique against PSA-type theories: it creates continuity in the Law but creates discontinuity in the Godhead.

PSA can't seem to see the forest for the trees, and is too locked unto the penal-judicial understanding of sacrifice. Honestly that's why it's so difficult to engage with PSA, because it's proponents often (and I'm not accusing you specifically, more in general) take their definitions for granted. For example, the language of the Song of the Suffering Servant (suffering, enduring, rejected by men, pierced for our transgression, chastisement, crushing ...) isn't in and of itself PSA language. It's Biblical language that we can try to explain by theories of PSA, or satisfaction, or Christus Victor, or moral theory.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What does this exactly mean? And what exactly is being satisfied?

Christ's righteous obedience satisfies the just demands of the Law. It's not about God needing to hurt someone; but about the just demands of the Law--to do justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly before our God, to love the Lord our God, to love our neighbor as ourselves, etc. Where Adam was disobedient, Christ was obedient; where Adam's disobedience brought sin and death to all men, Christ's obedience brings justification and eternal life to all men.

We are the benefactors by grace, by imputation--for we have received the righteousness of Jesus as pure grace. So what Christ accomplished, He accomplished for us. What He did, He did for us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

Yes but not punishment is not the only way to atone for sin. Christ paid our debt so that we are not punished. The crux here is excactly what manner this payment was made, and in what manner Christ takes our punishment away. Sins (and injustice in general) can be atoned for either by punishment or satisfaction. I would argue that satisfaction is more in line with the covenantal and sacrificial systems of the Bible, as a giving up of something valuable to restore the relationship between parties.

Christ was beaten, scourged, and brutally executed by crucifixion. I gather satisfaction could have been accomplished without this, but this is what the Father willed and the Son subjected His will to.

The language of satisfaction does not fully address the Biblical statements and allusions to substitution.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not about God needing to hurt someone;

That’s the rhetoric which completely invalidates the remainder of your point.

PSA is not about inflicting hurt. The fact is Jesus did suffer a violent torture and death. I gather there could have been a more humane way to accomplish this according to our post modern sensibilities. Let’s deal with the facts first.

 

[redleghunter]

We are the benefactors by grace, by imputation--for we have received the righteousness of Jesus as pure grace. So what Christ accomplished, He accomplished for us. What He did, He did for us.

Indeed and our sins were imputed to Him. The actual language is “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

 

[ViaCrucis]

That’s the rhetoric which completely invalidates the remainder of your point.

PSA is not about inflicting hurt. The fact is Jesus did suffer a violent torture and death. I gather there could have been a more humane way to accomplish this according to our post modern sensibilities. Let’s deal with the facts first.

If PSA is not about God needing a victim, then the whole point of PSA dissolves. Because that's the very premise of PSA: We had incurred a debt which required a penal response, that is, a punishment. Christ became our substitute and took on Himself the punishment that would have otherwise been directed at us. Jesus took a bullet for us, but the One who fired that bullet is God the Father.

That's the issue. That an object of punishment was necessary. So, absolutely it is about inflicting hurt, it is about the necessity of a cosmic punching bag. Without that key element there is no Penal Substitution.

No one denies that Christ was our substitute, that He bore our death, that He bore our sufferings, that He bore our sin (etc); those things aren't under dispute. The dispute is on who or what is that which is inflicting death and suffering on Him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Indeed and our sins were imputed to Him. The actual language is “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Yes. Christ our Lord freely bore our sin, and He took our sin with Him into death.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

If PSA is not about God needing a victim, then the whole point of PSA dissolves. Because that's the very premise of PSA: We had incurred a debt which required a penal response, that is, a punishment. Christ became our substitute and took on Himself the punishment that would have otherwise been directed at us. Jesus took a bullet for us, but the One who fired that bullet is God the Father.

That's the issue. That an object of punishment was necessary. So, absolutely it is about inflicting hurt, it is about the necessity of a cosmic punching bag. Without that key element there is no Penal Substitution.

No one denies that Christ was our substitute, that He bore our death, that He bore our sufferings, that He bore our sin (etc); those things aren't under dispute. The dispute is on who or what is that which is inflicting death and suffering on Him.

-CryptoLutheran

PSA focuses on the substitute aspect. The substitute being Christ who satisfied the wrath due us.

Christ indeed suffered the penalty due us as He suffered death. The wages of sin is death.