1

Scholarlyagreement
Themajorityinterpretationofpenalsubstitutioncameundersustainedattackduringthenineteenth century.1Theassaultcontinuedthroughoutthetwentiethcentury,23withtheresultthatthetheorylost considerablesupportamongtheologiansoverthelastthirtyyears.Whileasignificantnumberof theologiansabandoningithavebeenliberal,4inthetwentyfirstcenturythereisanincreasing recognitionamongevenconservativetheologiansthatattheveryleastthereissomethingbadlywrong withtraditionalpenalsubstitution,5andthatthemosttheoriginalBiblicalteachingisbestunderstoodas participatory.678
'Thecharacteroftheneededreformbecamemoreandmoreclear:Christianthoughtmustbebroughtoverfrom thepointofviewoflawtothatoftheconscience,itmustberaisedfromlegalitytomorality.Thoseevenwho wishedtoadhereasfaraspossibletothetraditionofthepast,triedtofindanewfoundationforthedoctrineof substitutioninthemoralfactofsolidarity.TheygaveupjustifyingtheexpiatorycondemnationofChristonthe pleathatdivinejusticemustbesatisfied;theywerecontenttoinsistupontheorganicbondwhichunitedtheSon ofmanwiththewholerace.Thismethodofargumentation,thefirstsketchofwhichwasgivenbyCh.Secretan, andwhichwaspowerfullydevelopedbysomanyorators,amongwhomshouldbementionedE.Bersier,Ed.de Pressense,andCh.Bois,hastheadvantageofbeingmodem;butitremainstobeseenwhether,fromalogical pointofview,theargumentdoesnotruintheancientedificeitwasdestinedtosupport.',Sabatier,'TheDoctrine oftheAtonement:AndItsHistoricalEvolutionandReligion;and,ReligionandModernCulture',pp.9293(1904) 2 Butnewchallengestothepositionaroseinthemodernperiodandwereacceptedbymoreandmorechurches. Ableapologistsforthepenalsubstitutionaryviewalsodefendedanddevelopedthatpositionagainstthesenew theories.,Allison,HistoryoftheDoctrineoftheAtonement,SouthernBaptistJournalofTheology(11.2.15), 2007) 3 'OnmuchthesamebasisarticulatedbyAbelard,nineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturyProtestantliberals advocatedaversionofmoralinfluencetheoryoveragainstthesatisfactiontheoryoffundamentalismand evangelicalism.AprimaryexampleisHoraceBushnell'suseofsatisfactionterminologytoargueforamoral influencetheoryofatonement.',Weaver,'Thenonviolentatonement',p.19(2001) 4 InthewakeofSocinianattacks,ProtestantliberalismandCatholicmodernismrejectedobjectivetheories, especiallypenalsubstitution.ThehereticalanthropologyofR.Girardhasreinforcedthetrend.Radicalfeminists haveexpressedthestrongestpossibleaversion.,DITB 5 Inthetwentyfirstcentury,thedoctrineoftheatonementhascomeunderfierceattack.Particularlysingled outforcriticismisthepenalsubstitutionarytheorybecause,accordingtoitsdetractors,itprivilegesone (outmoded)metaphoroftheatonement,itfosterspassivityinthefaceofevilandoppression,anditeven encourageschildabuse.Someevangelicals,disturbedbythesecriticisms,havesoughttorevisethetraditional doctrine.Manyevangelicals,however,rehearseanddefendthepenalsubstitutionarymodel.,Allison,Historyof theDoctrineoftheAtonement,SouthernBaptistJournalofTheology(11.2.1617),2007) 6 IntheRomanChurch,afterthecritiquebySabourinandLyonnetandundertheclimatecreatedbyTeilhardde ChardinandRahner,fewscholarsofnote,ifany,havemaintainedit.K.BarthagainproclaimedthatChristwas theJudgejudgedinoursteadbutexpresslyrepudiatedthedoctrinethathewassopunishedastospareus deathandtosatisfythedemandsofwrath(CDIV/1,59/2,fineprintafterabout40percentofthesection).In theirlaterwritingsMoltmannandPannenberghavecomeclosertoevangelicallanguage.However,Moltmann deniesthatGodswrathwasappeased(2526),andPannenberg,despitestrongstatementsofpenalsubstitution (42527),claimsthatthereconcilingdeathofChristisnotapaymentthatChristmadetoGodinplaceofothers (429;448,againstsatisfaction).,DITB 7 'Sandersgoessofarastoarguethat"thepurposeofChrist'sdeath[forPaulis]thatChristiansmayparticipatein it,notthattheirsinsmaybeatonedfor.".',Finlan,'ThebackgroundandcontentofPaul'sculticatonement metaphors',p.117(2004) 8 'Sanderscombinestheparticipationistpassageswiththosethatmention"dyingtothelaw"andarguesthatitis notsomuchatonement,asitissharinginchrist'sdeath"thatbringssalvation.',ibid.,p,117
1

2 ThefollowingtableslistcommentaryontheatonementfromstandardBibledictionariesand commentaries.AlthoughsomeofthemretainatraditionalinterpretationoftheBiblicaltexts,asawhole theyconfirmoverwhelminglytheunderstandingofScripturetowhichourcommunityhasalwaysheld. ScholarlySupportforParticipatoryAtonement EerdmansBibleDictionary WhilePaulstressesthecentralityofChristsvicarioussacrifice,theSynopticGospelsnotethatChrist claimedtogivehislifeasaransomformany(Matt.20:28par.Mark10:45;seeExod.21:30).Allthree EvangelistsrecordChristssincerementionofhiseternalsacrificewhenatthebreakingofthebreadhe referredtohisownbodyduringtheLastSupper(thisismybody;Matt.26:2627par.Mark14:2223; Luke22:1920). Ontheotherhand,theNewTestamentleavesnodoubtthatatonementisaccomplishedthroughthe believersparticipationwiththeLordinhisdeathratherthanmerelybyChristsdeathonthecross(Rom. 6:2,6,8;cf.Gal.2:1920).9 NewBibleDictionary ItisagreedbymoststudentsthatChristsdeathwasvicarious.Ifinonesensehediedforsin,inanother hediedforus.Butvicariousisatermwhichmaymeanmuchorlittle.Itisbettertobemoreprecise. MostscholarstodayaccepttheviewthatthedeathofChristisrepresentative.Thatistosay,itisnotthat Christdiedandsomehowthebenefitsofthatdeathbecomeavailabletomen(didnotevenAnselmaskto whommorefittinglythantouscouldtheybeassigned?). Itisratherthathediedspecificallyforus.Hewasourrepresentativeashehungonthecross.Thisis expressedsuccinctlyin2Cor.5:14,onediedforall;thereforeallhavedied.Thedeathofthe Representativecountsasthedeathofthoseherepresents. WhenChristisspokenofasouradvocatewiththeFather(1Jn.2:1)thereistheplainthoughtof representation,andasthepassageimmediatelygoesontodealwithhisdeathforsinitisrelevanttoour purpose.TheEpistletotheHebrewshasasoneofitsmajorthemesthatofChristasourgreatHighPriest. Thethoughtisrepeatedoverandover.NowwhateverelsemaybesaidaboutaHighPriest,herepresents men.ThethoughtofrepresentationmaythusbesaidtobeverystronginthisEpistle. d.SubstitutiontaughtintheNewTestament Butcanwesaymore?Thereisamarkeddisinclinationamongmanymodernscholars(thoughnotbyany meansall)tousetheolderlanguageofsubstitution.Nevertheless,thisseemstobetheteachingoftheNT, andthatnotinoneortwoplacesonly,butthroughout.10

10

Atone,Atonement,inMyers(ed.),EerdmansBibleDictionary,p.106(1987) Morris,Atonement,inWood&Marshall(eds.),NewBibleDictionary,p.103(3rded.1996)

3 ScholarlySupportforParticipatoryAtonement AnchorYaleBibleDictionary TheideaofappeasinganangrygodbysacrificeiscertainlypresentinsomenonJewishideasofsacrifice. Muchhingesonthetranslationofthewordhilaskesthai(andcognates)intheNT,andtheequivalentOT words(usuallykpr).InnonJewishGk,thewordclearlycarriesideasofpropitiation.However,inaclassic essayDodd(1935:8295)arguedthatJewishandChristianusagediffersfromthatdecisively.11 DoddsargumentshaveconvincedmanythattheNTdoesnotthinkofJesusdeathasappeasingGods anger;rather,God,throughJesus,dealswithandnullifiessinanditseffects.12 Thusitisunlikelythatthesacrificialsystemwaseverconceivedofinsuchasubstitutionarysense. SubstitutionaryideashavebeenthoughttoliebehindmuchofPaulslanguage,thoughmanywouldargue thatrepresentationratherthansubstitutiondoesfarmorejusticetoPaulsthought.13 Jesuslife,death,andresurrectionarethusvicariousinthesenseofachievingsomethingforothersby takingtheirplace;butitisnotsubstitutionaryinthesensethatJesustakestheplaceofhumansinners whilsttheygofree(orelsewhere):humanbeingsaresummonedtojoinJesus.14 WhetherNTwriterseverconceivedofJesusdeathasaransomprice,apricethathadtobepaidto securethereleaseofhumanity,ismoreuncertain.Thisideabecameextremelypopularinpatristicthought withgreatdiscussionsaboutwhomthepricewaspaidto(God?ortheDevil?)andthenatureofthe transactioninvolved.ItishoweverdifficulttofindsuchideasintheNTitself(thoughseeMarshall1974for adifferentview).TextslikeEph1:7(redemptionthroughhisblood)and1Pet1:1819(youwere redeemedwiththepreciousbloodofChrist)canscarcelybemadetosupportthetheoryofJesusdeath asaransompricepaid,sincebothtextsdonotusetheGkconstructionofagenitiveofprice.15 TherelatedlanguageofPaul,youwereboughtwithaprice(1Cor6:20;7:23),shouldalsoprobablynot bepressedtoofar.16 SimilarlyPaulslanguageofJesusredeemingthoseunderthecurseoftheLawbybecomingacursefor us(Gal3:13;4:5)canonlywithdifficultysupporttheviewthatJesusdeathisbeinginterpretedasa ransompricepaidinasubstitutionarysense.FarmoreimportantforPaulhereseemstobethe representativenatureofJesusdeath(seeHooker1971).17 ThenearestonegetstoanideaofapricebeingpaidisinMark10:45,whereJesusdeathissaidtobea lytronantipollon,aransomformany.Theuseofanti(inplaceof,for),ifpressed,doessuggestideas ofsubstitutionandequivalence,andtheransomideainlytroncouldbesaidtoreinforcethis.However, oneshouldnotreadtoomuchintothis.Thereisforexamplenotalkofsinhereandoneshouldnot necessarilyinterprettheverseasimplyingaviewofJesusdeathasanexpiatorysacrificeforsinwitha substitutionaryideaofsacrificeimplied.Thisprobablyconfusescategoriesunnecessarily.18
11 12

Tuckett,AtonementintheNT,inFreedman(ed.),AnchorYaleBibleDictionary,volume1,p.519(1996) Ibid.,p.519 13 Ibid.,p.519 14 Ibid.,p.519 15 Ibid.,p.520 16 Ibid.,p.520 17 Ibid.,p.521 18 Ibid.,p.521

4 ScholarlySupportforParticipatoryAtonement EncyclopediaofChristianity Atonementisacentralconceptinbiblicaltheology.Alongwiththetraditionalmisunderstandingof appeasinganangrydeity,thepenaldefinitionofmakinggoodanoffenseandtheviewingofthecultusasa humanworkhaveimpededamorerelevantapproach.19

Janowski,Atonement:OTandJudaism,inFahlbusch&Bromiley(eds.),EncyclopediaofChristianity,volume1, p.152(19992003)

19

5 Aparticularlystronglysustainedscholarlyargumentforparticipatoryatonementappearedinanarticle writtenin2007andpublishedin2008.20Thisarticlenotonlydirectedsystematiccriticismtowards traditionalorthodoxunderstandingsoftheatonement,italsopresentedawelldevelopedparticipatory model.Thefollowingtablesummarizesthearticlescriticismsoftraditionalinterpretationsofthe atonement. Model Criticism Doesnotaddresstheatonementfromarelationalpointofview,and introducesaproblematiccharacterizationofGod;2122theunderlyingproblem Satisfaction ofhumannatureisnotaddressed23 ItislogicallyincoherentthatGodwantedasacrifice,butsubstitutedHimself inplaceofthoseHeforgave,24andlogicallyincoherentthatGodonly Substitution appearedtomakeasacrificewhichcostHim;25thiswouldmeannogenuine sacrificewasinvolved,andthattheapparentcostwasinrealitydeceptive26 ItislogicallyandmorallyincoherentthatGodpunishedGodforthesinsof Penalsubstitution others27 Ransom Doesnotaddresstheatonementfromarelationalpointofview,and introducesaproblematiccharacterizationofGod28 Exemplary PureexemplarymodelsfailtoexplainthefundamentalpurposeofChrists death,otherthanasanexample,29andfailtoaddresssinontologically30
Restall&Bayne,AParticipatoryModeloftheAtonement,inNagasawa&ErikWielenberg(eds.),NewWavesin PhilosophyofReligion,pp.150166(2008) 21 Thesurestsignthatamarriageorfriendshipisintroubleiswhentheparticipantsstartinvokingtheirrights,or callingattentiontotheirpartnersobligations.Friendsdoindeedhaveobligationstoeachother,butitisnotin thenatureoffriendshipforfriendstocallattentiontosuchobligations. 22 WhatdoesGodsforgivenesscostGod?DoesGodhavetostruggletoovercomefeelingsofangerand resentmenttowardsus?ThatdoesntsoundliketheGodoftheNewTestamentaGodwhoseveryessenceis loveandwhosenatureitistoalwaysshowmercy.WhycantGodsimplydecidetoforgiveus?Whatexactlyisthe pricethatGodmustpay,andtowhommustitbepaid?Whataretheconsequencesofthewrongthatwehave donetoGod,andhowdoesChristsdeathandresurrectionrevealthem? 23 Noneofthisistosaythattalkofobligationsanddutiescanplaynoroleforsomeonewhotakessintobea primarilyontologicalproblem.Itismerelytosaythatsuchtalkdoesnotgettotheheartoftheproblem.Thesigns thatthesickneedadoctorarethesymptomsoftheillness. 24 WhywasthesacrificethatChristpaidtoGodenormouslypleasingtohim?IfitweresacrificealonethatGod desired,whymustGodincarnatemakethatsacrifice?Whycouldntsomeoneelsemakethesacrifice? 25 ItiseasyforGodtoobtainsalvation,butGoddoesntwantustothinkthatitiseasy.Itisimportantforusthat oursalvationappearstocostGodmuch,forotherwisewewilltakeitforgranted.SinceGodcannotorwillnot deceive,Godmustthenobtainoursalvationinacostlymanner. 26 oneoughttowonderaboutaGodwhomakesaprocessthatisnotintrinsicallycostlyappeartobeso 27 TheideathatGodmightpunishGodforadebtowedtoGodisastrangeone.IsGodpunishingGodself?That seemspathological.IsGodtheFatherpunishingGodtheSon?Thatseemssadistic. 28 Althoughtheransommodelcontinuestohaveadherents(Taliaferro1988)thecriticismsofthemodelarewell knownandwewillsaylittleaboutithere. 29 Campbellcapturestheproblemherewell: Ameaninglessortrivialdeathcannotreveallove:itrevealsnothingexceptperhapsfoolishness.IfIdrive mycarathighspeedintoabrickwall,loudlyproclaimingmyloveforallhumanity,mysurvivingfamilywould probablywonderhowIhadleftmysenses,nothowextraordinarilylovingmygesturewas(Campbell1994:239). Theproblem,inanutshell,isthattheexemplarymodelneedstobeabletocharacterizeChristsdeathas accomplishingsomethinginandofitself,apartfromitsinspirationalvalue. 30 TheNewTestamentdoespresentChristasamodelofselfsacrificiallove,butitdoesntsuggestthatour
20

6 Theargumentthearticlemakesforparticipatoryatonementissummarizedinthefollowingtable.
AParticipatoryModeloftheAtonement Aspect Details Paulstaxonomyoftheatonementisontologicalandrelational,addressingboththe Taxonomy sourceofsin(humannature),anditseffect(abreachofhumandivinerelations)31 Paulobservesthattherebornbeliever addressessinbyparticipatinginthelifeof Efficacy Christ32 Paulrelatestheatonementdirectlytotheformationofaparticipatorycommunityin Consequence Christ33

ArecentpaperexaminingPaulsuseoftheGreekwordhilastrion(traditionallytranslatedpropitiation), makesthepointthattheologicallybiasedinterpretationsofthiswordhaveresultedininaccurate interpretationsoftheatonementastaughtbyPaul.34Theauthorexplainshowthelinguisticevidence hasbeenmisunderstood,resultinginthehilastrionbeinginterpretedasasacrificialvictimwhenthe wordneverhadsuchameaning.35 Themostrelevantlinguisticevidencedemonstratesthatthroughoutthefirstcenturythewordwas mainlyusedeitherofthemercyseatontheArkoftheCovenant,orasvotiveofferingstoappease pagangods. Infact,thereareonlytwomainapplicationsofthetermupthoughthemiddleof thesecondcenturyAD.
primaryproblemisalackofsuchmodels,nordoesitsuggestthatweareignorantofthecostsofsin.Instead,it suggeststhatoursinfulnatureputsusatoddswitheachotherandwithGod. 31 Instead,thepassageportraysPaulasfocusedonontologicalandrelationalmatters. 32 Howdoesparticipationdealwithsin?AccordingtoPaul,ourchangeofidentityliberatesusfromsin:sincewe arenolongerboundby(orundertheswayof)sin,wearefreetoparticipateinarestoredrelationshipwithGod. Infact,PaulseemstothinkthatweinsomewayparticipateinChristsrelationshipwithGod(cf.Romans6:811: theChristianisalivetoGodinChristJesus). 33 ParticipatorylanguagealsoinfusesPaulsconceptionoftheChurch,whichhedescribesasthebodyofChrist. PauldescribestheSpiritasmarryingtheChristiantoChristsothatthetwobecomeoneflesh(Rom.7:14;ICor. 6:1518). 34 Unfortunately,paststudiesofhaveoftenallowedtheologicalconsiderationstoovershadow lexicography.Henceitwasthedoctrineofpropitiationratherthantheactualoccurrencesoftheterm inancientsourcesthatdominatedtheEnglishlanguagediscussionofRomans3:25inthetwentiethcentury., Bailey,JesusastheMercySeat:TheSemanticsandTheologyofPaulsUseofHilasterioninRomans3:25,Tyndale Bulletin(51.1.155),2000 35 Additionalmistakescanbemadebyignoringtheavailablelinguisticevidence.SincePaulelsewherecompares Jesustoananimalvictim,asforexampleinRomans8:3,wherethephraseisstandardSeptuagintal languagefortheLeviticalsinofferingor(cf.NRSVmg.),manyhavemistakenlyconcludedthatsimilarvictim languagemustbepresentinRomans3:25.Jesusissaidtobea;heisalsosaidtohaveshedhisblood. Therefore,itiscommonlyassumedthataintheancientworldmusthavebeensomethingthatcould sheditsblood,i.e.asacrificialvictim(sacrificeofatonement,NIV;NRSV).This,too,fitstheimmediatecontext. Butitisafalsesyllogism,sinceitassumesthatthemeaningofcanbedeterminedbythemeaningof blood,andismoreoversupportedbynoexternalevidence:neverdenotesananimalvictiminany knownsource.,ibid.,p.156

7 Itcandesignate(1)thegoldenmercyseator ontopofIsraelsarkofthecovenant(LXX Pentateuch;Heb.9:5;sixtimesinPhilo);or(2)durablevotiveofferingstothepagandeities, generally(cf.LSJs.v.II.2).(Therearealsominorextensionsofthe Pentateuchaluseintheprophets:cf.Ezk.43:14,17,20;Am.9:1.)36 ThelatterusewascommonamongtheGreeks,butisalsofoundinfirstcenturyJewishliterature,37 whereasintheGreekliteratureitcanbeunderstoodasagiftforthepurposeofappeasement.However, considerabledifficultyresultsfromapplyingthismeaningtotheuseofhilastrionbyPaul,sincethegift inquestion(Christ),isactuallypresentedbyGodHimself.38 Morerelevantistheunderstandingofhilasterionasthemercyseat,anunderstandingwhichhaslexical support,3940andBiblicalevidence. Bycontrast,amorespecialisedallusiontothebiblicalmercyseat(whichisnotagifttothe gods)doesfitPaulscontext,withplentyofsupportfromlexicography(cf.LXXPentateuch).Paul focusesonthelawandtheprophetsandthenmoreparticularlyontheSongofMosesin Exodus15.ThecombinationofGodsrighteousnessandredemptioninExodus15:13 ( , )closelyparallelsRomans 3:24( and ). Furthermore,Exodus15:17promisesthattheexoduswouldleadtoanew,idealsanctuary establishedbyGodhimself.GodsopensettingoutofJesusasthenew thecentre ofthesanctuaryandfocusofboththerevelationofGod(Ex.25:22;Lv.16:2;Nu.7:89)and atonementforsin(Leviticus16)fulfilsthistradition.41

Ibid.,p.156 Theapplicationof toGreekvotiveofferingswasthenormalormainstreamuseinthefirstcentury AD.Whilegenerallypagan,itisalsoreflectedinJewishsourcessuchasJosephusAnt.16.182and4Maccabees 17:22(seebelow).,ibid.,p,156 38 YetnoonehaseversucceededinshowinghowGodissupposedtohavepresentedhumanity(orhimself?) withagiftthatpeoplenormallypresentedtothegods.Moreover,themainstreamuseoffindsno parallelinthelawandtheprophetstowhichPaulappeals(Rom.3:21).,ibid.,p.157 39 Applyingthebiblicalsenseof toJesusinthistheologicallypregnantwaywouldnothavebeen entirelyunprecedentedforPaul,sincePhilothoughtofthemercyseatas ,asymbolofthegraciouspowerofGod(Mos.2.96;cf.Fug.100).,ibid.,p.157 40 TheoldobjectionthatPaulcannothavealludedtothewellknown ofthePentateuchwithoutusing theGreekdefinitearticleisbaseless,sincePhiloclearlyusesanarthroustorefertothemercyseat (Mos.2.95,97;Fug.100).,ibid.,p.158 41 Ibid.,p.157
37

36

Currentcriticismoftraditionalinterpretations
Interestinhistoricalternativestopenalsubstitutionhasincreased,andtheinterpretationsofAbelard andtheSocinianshavereceivedrenewedattention.However,interactionwithourcommunitys understandingoftheatonementremainssuperficial,424344withanumberofcommentatorsdoinglittle morethanquotingeachother.454647 Significantly,supportforaparticipatoryunderstandingoftheatonementhasincreased,especiallyin reactiontotheviolentnatureoftraditionalpenalsubstitution.4849Itisincreasinglyunderstoodthata changewasrequirednotinGod,butinthosewhosinnedagainstHim.50Likewise,theirrelevanceof penalsubstitutiontothelifeofthebelieverhasbeenidentifiedasaseriousweaknessinthistheory.5152
'ThedeathofChristwasnotanatonement,butexpressedtheloveoftheFatherinasacrificeforsin.Salvation camethroughgoodworksandtheacceptanceofChristadelphiandoctrinesandbaptism.',Kyle,'TheReligious Fringe:AhistoryofalternativereligionsinAmerica',p.192(1993) 43 'Christadelphianwriterspointtothefactthatthereisagreatdifferencebetweena'representative'anda 'substitute'.Arepresentative,theyhold,isnotdisconnectedfromthoserepresented,whereasasubstitute performsaroleinsteadofthoseforwhomheorsheissubstitute.',Scotland,'SectarianReligioninContemporary Britain',p.49(2000) 44 'Theatonement,then,intheChristadelphiansystemismerelyanexampleforustofollow.',House&Carle, 'DoctrineTwisting:Howcorebiblicaltruthsaredistorted',p.160(2003) 45 'Additionally,TheBirminghamStatementofFaithspeaksof'theofferingofthebodyofJesusonceforall,asa propitiationtodeclaretherighteousnessofGod,asabasisfortheremissionofsins'.48Thisunderstandingofthe atonementisnotfarremovedfromthatoftheorthodoxcreedalChristianchurcheswhowouldwanttoaffirm thatJesusbothdiedasarepresentativeinthatherepresentedtheentirehumanracetoGodandasasubstitute inthathepersonallymetandborethepunishmentwhichthesinofeveryindividualmerits.',Scotland,'Sectarian ReligioninContemporaryBritain',p.49(2000) 46 'TheChristadelphiandoctrineoftheatonementisnotunlikeothermainstreamChristianchurchesinthat becauseJesuswassinlesshecouldbeofferedasasacrificeforsin,buttheyholdthatJesuscouldnothavedone thisifhehimselfhadbeenGod.',Edwards,'Abriefguidetobeliefs:ideas,theologies,mysteries,andmovements', p.422(2001) 47 'TheChristadelphianteachingontheatonementisfairlysimilartoorthodoxChristianity:beingsinlessJesus couldofferhimselfasasacrificetoman.However,hewouldnothavebeenabletodothisifhehimselfhadbeen God.',Hunt,'AlternativeReligions:Asociologicalintroduction',p.44(2003) 48 'AccordingtoAnthonyBartlett,theNewTesatmenthasnoplaceforwrathanditspropitiation.Thusthe atonementcanonlybe"saved"ifitisstrippedofits"violent"implications.',Horton,'Lordandservant:acovenant Christology',p.184(2005) 49 'Themostoutspokenchampioninthiscenturyofthe"moralinfluence"theoryhasprobablybeenDr.Hastings Rashdall,whose1915BamptonLectureswerepublishedunderthetitleTheIdeaofAtonementinChristian Theology.HeinsistedthatachoicehadtobemadebetweenAnselm'sobjectiveandAbelard'ssubjective understandingsoftheatonement,andtherewasnoquestioninhismindthatAbelardwascorrect.Foraccording toJesus,Rashdallmaintained,theonlyconditionofsalvationwasrepentance:"thetrulypenitentmanwho confesseshissintoGodreceivesinstantforgiveness."',Stott&McGrath,'TheCrossofChrist',p.214(2006) 50 Thusinthisview,theworkofthecrossaffectsachangeinus,ratherthaninGod.HoraceBushnellrevivedthis viewoftheatonementinthenineteenthcentury.Heregardedsinasatypeofsicknessfromwhichwemustbe healed.,Kuhns,AtonementandViolence,QuodlibetJournal(5.4),October2003 51 First,thistheoryemphasizesChristsdeathasasacrificeofpropitiationthatturnsawayGodswrath,almostto neglectofanyimmediateconsequenceofChristsdeathforthedailylifeofthebeliever.,ibid. 52 IfsomeoftheothertheoriesareweakinnotshowingwhyJesushadtodie,thistheory,asitissometimes expounded,failstoadequatelyshowwhyJesusspentsomuchtimeteachingandcallingpeopletofollowhim., ibid.
42

9 Evenmoreimportantly,penalsubstitutionfailstoexplaintheformationoftheecclesia,abodyof believerswhoparticipatetogetherotherinthelife,death,andresurrectionofChrist.53 Mostimportantlyofall,moderntheologianshaverealizedthattraditionalreadingsoftheatonement (typicallythepenalsubstitutionmodeladoptedbytheReformers),havehistoricallybeenthecauseof seriousspiritualdysfunction,andevengrossphysicalviolence. Intermsofspiritualdysfunction,ithasbeenrealizedthatsubstitutionaryinterpretationsofthe atonementseparateChristsdeathsocompletelyfromthebelieverthatithaslittleornothingtodo withtheirlives.ThiswashistoricallyseenasanadvantagebytheReformers,sinceitgavecredenceto theconceptofsalvationbyfaithalonewithoutworks,butisnowseenasanartificialisolationofChrist fromthosehecametosavewhichrenderstheatonementvirtuallyirrelevantinthedailylifeofthe Christian. Alltoooftenthecrossistreatedassomethingofimportanceinrelationtotheinitiationor inaugurationoftheChristianlife,butthatwhichexercisesnosubsequentinfluenceoverthat life.54 ThetitleofthisaddressreflectsthecontemporaryviewofthecrossheldbymanyChristians.it istoofaraway,acompletedtransaction,apasteventhavinglittletodowithourChristian identityandpractice.55 Thedetrimentaleffectthishasonthespirituallifeofthebelieverhasbeendescribedinextremelyblunt termsbycontemporarytheologians. 'Theworstcasescenariocanbeseeninallofthemenandwomenwhoearlyinlifemadesome decisionto"believeinJesusandhiscross."Theyraisedtheirhandatayouthrallyto"accept Christ."ortheywalkeddowntheaislewhenthepreachergavethealtarcallto"getsaved."Yet nowtheylivetheirlifenodifferentlythanthepersonwhonevermadeaprofessionoffaithin theLordJesus.56 Theresultisalifewhichislittledifferenttothatoftheunbeliever,andisjustifiedbytheassuranceofan atonementwhichfreedtheindividualfromanyparticipationinthelifeofChrist.5758TheologianDallas Willardisoneofanumberoftheologianswhohaveidentifiedthedoctrineofpenalsubstitutionasthe directcauseofthisspirituallyirresponsibleresponsetothegospel.5960
Thechurch,bothuniversalandineachcongregation,istheearthly,contemporaryexpressionofthatnewrace. Toooften,Iamafraid,thisisneglectedinourpreachingabouttheatonementandwhatitmeansforus.,ibid. 54 McGrath,TheMysteryoftheCross,p.187(1988) 55 Marshall,OnAHillTooFarAway?:ReclaimingTheCrossastheCriticalInterpretivePrincipleoftheChristian Life,ReviewandExpositor(91.2.248),1994 56 Wakabayashi,KingdomCome:HowJesusWantstoChangetheWorld,p.133(2003) 57 Whiletheremaybetingesofguiltathowtheirlifelooksrightnow,theyholdtheassurancedeepintheirheart thattheirdestinyinheavenissecured.Afterall,theybelievethatJesusdiedforthem,andtheyindicatedthatwith araisedhand,awalkdowntheaisle,a"sinner'sprayer."Therefore,theybelievethattheirsinsareforgivenpast, present,future.',ibid.,p.133 58 Thecrossisindeed,onahilltoofaraway,irrelevanttowhatwemaybefacingnow.Itsamatterofpersonal salvation.Ithasnomeaningtohowonelives.,Kuhns,AtonementandViolence,QuodlibetJournal(5.4),October 2003 59 Henotesthatifweaskthe74percentofAmericanswhosaytheyhavemadeacommitmenttoJesusChrist whattheChristiangospelis,youwillprobablybetoldthatJesusdiedtopayforoursinsthatifwewillonlybelieve
53

10 Thedoctrineofeternalsecurity,whichisdependentcompletelyontheconceptofpenalsubstitution, hasbeenidentifiedascausingaspiritualmalaisewhichresultsinacarelessandlaxattitudetoactually livingthelifeofChrist.6162 Evangelicalsthemselveshaverealizedthattheirspecificdoctrinalunderstandingoftheatonementhas hadreallifebehavioraleffectswhicharecompletelyunspiritual.Thedoctrineofpenalsubstitutionhas separatedChristsignificantlyfromthosehecametosave,63withdramaticallynegativeeffectsforthe lifeoftheChristian.6465Thisisnotnewstoourcommunity;wehavebeensayingthisforyears.Asnoted previously,concernhasalsobeenexpressedbymoderntheologiansthatthedoctrineofpenal substitutionhashistoricallyjustifiedandencouragedChristianactsofphysicalviolence.66 IamespeciallyhorrifiedattheamountofbloodthatChristianshavespilledinthenameofGod, evenkillingeachother.ChristianskillingChristiansunderthebannerofthecrossoftheOne theyconfessisthePrinceofPeace.Somethingisterriblywrong.Ihavewonderedifpartofthe problemmightnotbeinourtheologyofandpreachingabouttheatonement.67
hedidthis,wewillgotoheavenwhenwedie.Thissummarizesverywellthepopularunderstandingofthepenal substitutionarytheoryoftheatonement.Incredibly,thisleadsmanyChristianstobelieve,thatGodforsome unfathomablereason,justthinksitappropriatetotransfercreditfromChrsitsmeritaccounttoours,andtowipe outoursindebt,uponinspectingourmindandfindingthatwebelieveaparticulartheoryoftheatonementtobe trueevenifwetrusteverythingbutGodinallothermattersthatconcernus.,ibid.,p.4 60 Soelledoesnotcriticizethesubstitutionarymodeloutofavestigeofliberaltheologysoptimisticviewof humanity;sheclearlyspeaksaboutthebondageofsinanditspowerinthelivesofcontemporarypersons.Her concern,rather,isthatChristsdeathinterpretedassubstitutionsoaccentssatisfyingthedemandsofGodsjustice (atransactioncompletedallatonce)thatthejustifiedChristiansnewwayoflifeisvirtuallyignored.Sheis correctinthisassertion.,Marshall,OnAHillTooFarAway?:ReclaimingTheCrossastheCriticalInterpretive PrincipleoftheChristianLife,ReviewandExpositor(91.2.251),1994 61 BycallingourdoctrineOncesaved,alwayssaved,wehavelulledmanydamnedsoulsintoastateof deception.Thephraseisabsolutelytruebutcomesacrosstotheaveragepersonlikethis:Oncesaved,youcan liveasunholyalifeasyoupleaseandstillgotoheaven.Thatnotionisuntrue.,Eliff,RevivalAndThe UnregenerateChurchMember,RAR(8.2.56),1999 62 Theproblemwiththedoctrineofeternalsecurity(oncesaved,alwayssaved,nomatterwhatyoudo!)is thatitisfocusedonourpastdecisionswithoutregardforthepresentorthefuture.Thisleadstoafalse assurance.Instarkcontrast,PaulsunderstandingofperseveranceisfocusedsquarelyontrustingGodinthe presentandthefuture,inconfirmationof,butalsoindisregardforthepast(Php3:1216).Thoughtheremaybe manyvalleys,truefaithanditsgoodworkswillnotdie,since,bydefinition,theyareanessentialpartofthegiftof God(Eph2:8).Moreover,genuineassuranceisbasedonobjectiveevidence:uponrealrepentanceandagrowing obedienceoffaith(Eph2:10).,Hafemen,inTheSBJTForum:WhatAretheBiblicalandPracticalImplicationsof theDoctrineofAssurance?,SBJT(2.1.70),1998) 63 However,IdofearthatmanyoftheformulationsofthesignificanceofChristsdeathhavenotsufficiently involvedthoseforwhomChristdied.,Marshall,OnAHillTooFarAway?:ReclaimingTheCrossastheCritical InterpretivePrincipleoftheChristianLife,ReviewandExpositor(91.2.251),1994 64 Inadifferentdirection,contemporarytheologianshavesuggestedthatsomeviewsofatonementscandalize unnecessarily;inparticular,thatcertainformsofthesubstitutionaryviewofatonementhavecontributedto ethicalpassivity.,ibid.,p.250 65 Further,infollowingthistraditionthatgoesbacktotheReformation,oneistemptedtobelieveallsufferinghas alreadybeenobtainedinChrist;itisfinished.JesusPaidItAll!Suchaview,Soellemaintains,leadstoa sufferingfreereligionwithlittleethicalsensitivity.,ibid.,p.251 66 'Inshort:itscriticschargethepenalsubstitutionviewwithsurreptitiouslylegitimatingviolenceinthenameof justice.',Vanhoover,Thedramaofdoctrine:acanonicallinguisticapproachtoChristiantheology,p.382(2005); Vanhooverarguesagainstthisview 67 Kuhns,AtonementandViolence,QuodlibetJournal(5.4),October2003

11 'InGirard'sassessment,however,Christiantheologythroughtheageshasalltoooftenslipped backintoanendorsementofsacredviolencebyencouragingthe(re)interpretationofJesus' deathinsacrificialtermsandthelike.Thus,similartofeministandliberationalistcritiques, Girard'sworksuggeststhattraditional"objective"atonementtheories(seebelow)have contributedtothesacralizationofviolencewithintheChristiantradition(forinteractionwith Girard'sthought,seeSwartley;Vanhoozer).'68 Thisviewhasunderstandablymetwithresistancefromdefendersoftheorthodoxview,with misunderstandingofthetraditionalteachingbeingblamedfortheviolencewhichresulted.69Scholarly supportforparticipatoryatonement,however,isbothwidespreadandincreasing. ScholarlySupportforParticipatoryAtonement Date Quotation 1994 Thecentralthesisofthislecturenowcomesintoview.Icontendthattheworkofthecrossisnot completeduntilweparticipateinit.70 PaulsunderstandingoftheChristiansparticipationinthecrossofChristisfoundational.71 Christslove,accordingtoKennethGrayston,ishisactionindyingnotchieflyasamartyrnot solelyasourrepresentativebutasourforerunner,toshowthewaythatallmustgo.42In otherwords,thedeathandresurrectionofChristaresavingeventsinsofarasChristians participateinthem.4372 2001 'Renosaysthat,inthisaccount,Milbankaccordstheactivityof"interpretivecreativity"an indispensableroleintheactofatonementitself,whichtherebygivesrisetotheideaof "participatoryatonement."'73 2003 LetmeadaptastatementfromMarshall:atonementasexclusivelyGodswork,precluding humanparticipation,isanoversimplification.AtonementasthegraciousactofGod,forsinand therebydoingforuswhatwecannotdoforourselves,mustbejoinedbythatwhichonlywecan do.74 TheseverseshighlightthatoursalvationinvolvescoordinatedeffortbetweenGodandus.75

Eddy&Beilby,Atonement,inDymess,Krkkinen&Martinez(eds.),GlobalDictionaryofTheology:AResource fortheWorldwideChurch,p.85(2008) 69 'Inattemptingtorelateorthodoxytothemodernsituationandthechallengeofliberationisttheologies,some authorsquestiontheconnectionthatismadebetweenorthodoxyandviolence.RichardMoustudiesReformist Theologyfromthisperspective,andconcludesthat,whilethereismuchviolenceinReformist/Calvinisthistory,it cannotbeexplainedwithreferencetoaReformeddoctrineofatonementifproperlyunderstood(2003:164).', Bergen,'Readingritual:Leviticusinpostmodernculture',p.103(2005) 70 Marshall,OnAHillTooFarAway?:ReclaimingTheCrossastheCriticalInterpretivePrincipleoftheChristian Life,ReviewandExpositor(91.2.251),1994 71 Ibid.,p.252 72 Ibid.,p.252 73 Hyman,'ThePredicamentofPostmodernTheology:RadicalOrthodoxyorNihilistTextualism?',p.87(2001) 74 Kuhns,AtonementandViolence,QuodlibetJournal(5.4),October2003 75 Ibid.

68

12 ScholarlySupportforParticipatoryAtonement Date Quotation 2004 'Forexample,HastingsRashdallpraisedAbelardlavishlyforatlaststatingthedoctrineofthe Atonement"inawaywhichhadnothingunintelligible,arbitrary,illogical,orimmoralaboutit" preciselybecauseAbelardwasanexemplaristandeschewedsuchbizarrenotionsaspenal substitutionandtheransompaidtothedevil.'76 2004 ParticipationisaconstantthemewithPaul.Thebelievermustofferuphiswholeselfasaliving sacrifice(Rom12:1;6:13)77 2005 'AbelardincludesmultiplereferencestoRomans5:58and8:3538,John3:16and15:13,aswell as1John4:19.Therefore,thechargeagainstAbelardthatatonementhasbeenreducedtoan idea,orthatnothinghappens,reallydoesnotapply.Somethingdoeshappenthatchangesthe courseofhistory;theloveofGodisrevealedforJewandGentileinJesusChrist.This demonstrationofloveisanobjectiveevent.Thetheoryisnotcompletelyreducedtothe subjectiveresponseofhumanity.'78 2005 'Abelardpaidattentiontocertainaspectsofsalvationthathadbeenneglectedforcenturies.He sawthatrealforgivenesshadtomean"makingthesinnerbetter,"butobjectivetheoriesof atonementdidnotsuggestthatthesinnerissavedatall.Abelardputtheemphasisbackonthe wholeofChrist'slife,notjustitstragicend.'79 'BothLutherandCalvinpresentadramaticandfrighteningscenarioofdivineviolencerestrained bydivinemercy,butamercythathadtobemediatedthroughviolence.'80 2006 PaulhadnothoughtofconversiontoChristsomehowindependentofthecross.Participationin Christalwaysincludedparticipationinhisdeath.81 Forthemoment,however,wemayobserveonerorollary.Thatis,theinadequacyoftheword substitutiontodescribewhatPaulwasteachinginallthis.Despiteitsmuchfavouredpedigree, substitutiontellsonlyhalfthestory.Thereis,ofcourse,animportantelementofJesustaking theplaceofothersthat,afterall,isattheheartofthesacrificialmetaphor. ButPaul'steachingisnotthatChristdies"intheplaceof"otherssothattheyescapedeath(as thelogicof"substitution"implies).86ItisratherthatChrist'ssharingtheirdeathmakesit possibleforthemtosharehisdeath. Representationisnotanadequatesingleworddescription,norparticularlyparticipationor participatoryevent.Butatleasttheyhelpconveythesenseofacontinuingidentificationwith Christin,through,andbeyondhisdeath,which,asweshallsee,isfundamentaltoPauls soteriology.82

Williams,Sin,grace,andredemption',inBrower&Guilfoy(eds.),'TheCambridgecompaniontoAbelard',p.259 (2004) 77 Finlan,ThebackgroundandcontentofPaul'sculticatonementmetaphors,p.118(2004) 78 Schmiechen,'Savingpower:theoriesofatonementandformsofthechurch',p.294(2005) 79 Finlan,'ProblemsWithAtonement:theOriginsof,andControversyAbout,theAtonementDoctrine',pp.7475 (2005) 80 Ibid.,pp.7576 81 Dunn,TheTheologyofPaultheApostle,p.410(2006) 82 Ibid.,p.223

76

13 ScholarlySupportforParticipatoryAtonement Date Quotation 2009 'emphasisuponthepracticeofacceptingforgivenessandextendingittooneanother,a participatoryatonementifyouwill.'83 2009 'Participatoryatonement:webecomereconciledtoGodbyparticipatinginJesus'pathofdeath andresurrection'84 'Ratherthansubstitutionaryatonement,Markspeaksofparticipatoryatonement.Wearecalled notsimplytobelievethatJesushasdoneitforus,buttoparticipateinhispassion.Thatisthe wayofbecoming"atone"withGod.'85 2009 'And(fromthevantagepointofthemysteryitself),thecharacteroftheGod/worldrelationshipis understoodtobeparticipatory,nottransactional.IfGoddoesitall,wedonothing.Ifwedo something,God'ssovereignpoweriscompromised. Inaparticipatorymodel,butcontrast,Goddoesitallandwearefullyincludedinthedoingof God.Andnotaspuppetsarewefullyincluded,butascreaturescreatedbytheCreatorGodtobe creative.Itiswewhocontributesomething,wewhoareartistsparticipatingintheartistryof God.'86 2009 'CouldAbelard,whorejectedcrusadingandthecompensatoryunderstandingofChrist'sdeath, guideustodaytosuchanonviolenttheoryofatonement?'87 'theAbelardianmodelcontainstruthseffectiveinguidingustodaytoanonviolenttheoryof atonement.'88

Steere,'RediscoveringConfession:AConstructivePracticeofForgiveness'p.227(2009) Borg,'ConversationswithScripture:TheGospelofMark',p.81(2009) 85 Ibid.,p.81 86 Rigby,'"BeautifulPlaying":Motlmann,Barth,andtheWorkoftheChristian',inMcCormack&Bender(eds.), 'TheologyasConversation:TheSignificanceofDialogueinHistoricalandContemporaryTheology:AFestschriftfor DanielL.Migliore',p.114(2009) 87 Love,'InSearchofaNonViolentAtonementTheory:AreAbelardandGirardaHelp,oraProblem?',inibid.,p. 197 88 Ibid.,p.197

84

83