You might also want to touch on the emphasis of Heaven as our final resting place instead of a new Earth and Heaven as would befit the distinctions you have made here about the Cross. I seem to notice those who use the penal substitutionary view also tend to emphasize going to Heaven and that's it. They ignore, of course, the last couple chapters of Revelations where we get the whole kit all sparkling clean again.
Anna
Anna
· 2 years ago
Amen, Hallelujah, Bravo and Chocolate Cake, too!
You might also want to touch on the emphasis of Heaven as our final resting place instead of a new Earth and Heaven as would befit the distinctions you have made here about the Cross. I seem to notice those who use the penal substitutionary view also tend to emphasize going to Heaven and that's it. They ignore, of course, the last couple chapters of Revelations where we get the whole kit all sparkling clean again.
Anna
ron
· 2 years ago
"Instead, the Christus Victor model starts with the assumption that the Big Problem is fallen-ness, corruption, sin, and evil. And here the solution is to have God, in Jesus, embracing the dark places of creation in order to transform it. In this view, God is embracing his creation and, in effect, sowing the seeds for the redemption of the Universe."
Mark I love this byte from Eugene Peterson's The Message...Colossians 1:15-18 ...
15-18We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God's original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body. 18-20He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
In my wild imagination, the Word from Genesis that spoke all, and holds all of creation together, and the Living Word that pitches his tent in the neighbourhood of humanity...hung on the Cross. The reality..." all of creation " hung in balance on the cross. We have turned Atonement and Redemption in a snapshot, when in reality it is beyond our wildest dreams. It is the very imagination of God.
When we see it as such Atonement, and redemption become much more than " penal substitution " and " satisfaction theory "...suddenly it is about every bit of creation...not just a free pass on the glory train home. It becomes the Missio Dei of restoration...making at-one-ment with creation and God.
What does this mean for the mission of the Church? The mission becomes more than saving souls. It becomes as much about global justice and equality, poverty, politics, the environment...it is bigger than our dreams.
Some how around a table of conversation, I find myself often alone in my thoughts...viewed by most of my friends as a heretic...some one who has lost his way.
ron
· 2 years ago
"Instead, the Christus Victor model starts with the assumption that the Big Problem is fallen-ness, corruption, sin, and evil. And here the solution is to have God, in Jesus, embracing the dark places of creation in order to transform it. In this view, God is embracing his creation and, in effect, sowing the seeds for the redemption of the Universe."
Mark I love this byte from Eugene Peterson's The Message...Colossians 1:15-18 ...
15-18We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God's original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body. 18-20He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
In my wild imagination, the Word from Genesis that spoke all, and holds all of creation together, and the Living Word that pitches his tent in the neighbourhood of humanity...hung on the Cross. The reality..." all of creation " hung in balance on the cross. We have turned Atonement and Redemption in a snapshot, when in reality it is beyond our wildest dreams. It is the very imagination of God.
When we see it as such Atonement, and redemption become much more than " penal substitution " and " satisfaction theory "...suddenly it is about every bit of creation...not just a free pass on the glory train home. It becomes the Missio Dei of restoration...making at-one-ment with creation and God.
What does this mean for the mission of the Church? The mission becomes more than saving souls. It becomes as much about global justice and equality, poverty, politics, the environment...it is bigger than our dreams.
Some how around a table of conversation, I find myself often alone in my thoughts...viewed by most of my friends as a heretic...some one who has lost his way.
James Kingsley
· 2 years ago
great post mark. you've beautifully articulated the idea that it is possible to think bigger AND clearer at the same time. cheers to pulling the camera back and capturing the bigger picture.
James Kingsley
· 2 years ago
great post mark. you've beautifully articulated the idea that it is possible to think bigger AND clearer at the same time. cheers to pulling the camera back and capturing the bigger picture.
Jonas Lundström
· 2 years ago
Mark, Anna, Ron. Great words! I feel encouraged.
Jonas Lundström
· 2 years ago
Mark, Anna, Ron. Great words! I feel encouraged.
graham
· 2 years ago
Good stuff, Mark. I've also taken to referring to the death (and, indeed, whole ministry) of Jesus as God turning his cheek.
However, I don't see any need to speak of the passages from Romans 3 and 5 in a traditionally penal way. In fact, I'm not sure that you do either, even if you claim to. I think it is more helpful to say, as you do, that the 'punishment Christ receives is the full consequences of a sinful humanity.'
I've thought of it as a consequence of sin being death to humanity (understood in an Eastern sense). When God then chooses to unite with humanity to fight Sin, he consequently chooses to stand with them in the suffering of death.
Nevertheless, good stuff!
graham
· 2 years ago
Good stuff, Mark. I've also taken to referring to the death (and, indeed, whole ministry) of Jesus as God turning his cheek.
However, I don't see any need to speak of the passages from Romans 3 and 5 in a traditionally penal way. In fact, I'm not sure that you do either, even if you claim to. I think it is more helpful to say, as you do, that the 'punishment Christ receives is the full consequences of a sinful humanity.'
I've thought of it as a consequence of sin being death to humanity (understood in an Eastern sense). When God then chooses to unite with humanity to fight Sin, he consequently chooses to stand with them in the suffering of death.
Nevertheless, good stuff!
Chris
· 2 years ago
With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I have to confess that I am still not satisfied (I will not, however, DEMAND satisfaction). I'm glad that you distinguished at the start between the penal substitutionary view and the satisfaction view, but it strikes me that you just went on to conflate the two anyway. As I was commenting in a previous post, I mentioned the idea that wrath is not a necessary constituent of the penal substitutionary view, but you seem to imply that it is. If you were to develop these ideas more, I think it would be fruitful to reconsider the biblical concept of the wrath of God, especially as it functions in his love and justice. There are some very complex questions that lots of different views of the Atonement try to answer. If God was angry before the Atonement, who was he angry at, and why? Did his anger change after the Atonement or not? If he was not angry about sin, why not? In the first passage you quoted from Romans above, it says that God delayed the punishment of sin until the Atonement. If Jesus was punished in the Atonement, was there wrath involved or not? I realize the format of the blog doesn't allow for an in-depth exposition of these things, but I think the issue is quite a bit more complicated than shifting the priority we give one Atonement theory over another.
Chris
· 2 years ago
With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I have to confess that I am still not satisfied (I will not, however, DEMAND satisfaction). I'm glad that you distinguished at the start between the penal substitutionary view and the satisfaction view, but it strikes me that you just went on to conflate the two anyway. As I was commenting in a previous post, I mentioned the idea that wrath is not a necessary constituent of the penal substitutionary view, but you seem to imply that it is. If you were to develop these ideas more, I think it would be fruitful to reconsider the biblical concept of the wrath of God, especially as it functions in his love and justice. There are some very complex questions that lots of different views of the Atonement try to answer. If God was angry before the Atonement, who was he angry at, and why? Did his anger change after the Atonement or not? If he was not angry about sin, why not? In the first passage you quoted from Romans above, it says that God delayed the punishment of sin until the Atonement. If Jesus was punished in the Atonement, was there wrath involved or not? I realize the format of the blog doesn't allow for an in-depth exposition of these things, but I think the issue is quite a bit more complicated than shifting the priority we give one Atonement theory over another.
markvans
· 2 years ago
Chris...I'm going to beat the crap out of you for asking for satisfaction...though I will allow someone else to take the beating in your stead. ;)
Blog posts are supposed to be conversation starters. I wish I had one of those super-popular blogs where the readers respond to one another so completely that I, as the author, don't need to do anything but sit back. Alas. Mine is the sort of blog where I have to respond to the inadequacies of my blog posts myself.
I confess...I reached for the low hanging fruit. I wanted to get right to the point and didn't want to detour through the land of intellectual rigor. Yes indeed there is more nuance to be mined here. If I had it to do all over again, I would have started with a post outlining the major views of the atonement--ever so briefly--and proceed to show where evangelicalism lands today. My beef is with the Satisfaction Theory--but also with the Penal view as it is popularly understood. Instead of bringing clarity to the debate, I left the poorly understood doctrine remain poorly understood so that I could continue with my arguments.
I'd like to think that I did more than simply shift priorities. I articulated a way of understanding penal substitution that fits more directly with the Christus Victor model. And I didn't diminish the nature of the substitution in the manner that many who elevate the Christus Victor are so likely to do.
Oh, by the way, I'm not sure it is possible to have a penal substitutionary view without wrath, unless God isn't the one doing the punishing. I'm willing to be challenged on this, but I don't know of any articulation of the view that DOESN'T include wrath.
Now, to briefly answer your questions:
If God was angry before the Atonement, who was he angry at, and why?
I'm not sure he was angry in the ways that we normally think of "anger." In other words, YHWH isn't like Zeus. It seems to me that the anger of God is/was an intense longing and jealousy for his people that was frustrated by the sins of those people.
Did his anger change after the Atonement or not?
Yes. I believe so. Because the nature of the covenant and the nature of the "people of God" changed. In addition, I believe Jesus helps us understand the nature of God's anger and love towards his people.
If he was not angry about sin, why not?
He was angry about sin.
In the first passage you quoted from Romans above, it says that God delayed the punishment of sin until the Atonement. If Jesus was punished in the Atonement, was there wrath involved or not?
Yes. Indeed. I'm not denying that God has wrath. I'm just clarifying what that "wrath" might be. The problem is that popular Evangelical culture has a picture of what the wrath of God looks like:
God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God's hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason--to shed his blood to assuage God's anger.
My whole post is an attempt to deconstruct this understanding. Not destroy (because there is indeed some truth in this), but deconstruct and reframe. That is why I skipped through the nuance. I wanted to address this idea head on and offer a better way to approach things. And I didn't want to have to write 8 posts to do so.
markvans
· 2 years ago
Chris...I'm going to beat the crap out of you for asking for satisfaction...though I will allow someone else to take the beating in your stead. ;)
Blog posts are supposed to be conversation starters. I wish I had one of those super-popular blogs where the readers respond to one another so completely that I, as the author, don't need to do anything but sit back. Alas. Mine is the sort of blog where I have to respond to the inadequacies of my blog posts myself.
I confess...I reached for the low hanging fruit. I wanted to get right to the point and didn't want to detour through the land of intellectual rigor. Yes indeed there is more nuance to be mined here. If I had it to do all over again, I would have started with a post outlining the major views of the atonement--ever so briefly--and proceed to show where evangelicalism lands today. My beef is with the Satisfaction Theory--but also with the Penal view as it is popularly understood. Instead of bringing clarity to the debate, I left the poorly understood doctrine remain poorly understood so that I could continue with my arguments.
I'd like to think that I did more than simply shift priorities. I articulated a way of understanding penal substitution that fits more directly with the Christus Victor model. And I didn't diminish the nature of the substitution in the manner that many who elevate the Christus Victor are so likely to do.
Oh, by the way, I'm not sure it is possible to have a penal substitutionary view without wrath, unless God isn't the one doing the punishing. I'm willing to be challenged on this, but I don't know of any articulation of the view that DOESN'T include wrath.
Now, to briefly answer your questions:
If God was angry before the Atonement, who was he angry at, and why?
I'm not sure he was angry in the ways that we normally think of "anger." In other words, YHWH isn't like Zeus. It seems to me that the anger of God is/was an intense longing and jealousy for his people that was frustrated by the sins of those people.
Did his anger change after the Atonement or not?
Yes. I believe so. Because the nature of the covenant and the nature of the "people of God" changed. In addition, I believe Jesus helps us understand the nature of God's anger and love towards his people.
If he was not angry about sin, why not?
He was angry about sin.
In the first passage you quoted from Romans above, it says that God delayed the punishment of sin until the Atonement. If Jesus was punished in the Atonement, was there wrath involved or not?
Yes. Indeed. I'm not denying that God has wrath. I'm just clarifying what that "wrath" might be. The problem is that popular Evangelical culture has a picture of what the wrath of God looks like:
God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God's hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason--to shed his blood to assuage God's anger.
My whole post is an attempt to deconstruct this understanding. Not destroy (because there is indeed some truth in this), but deconstruct and reframe. That is why I skipped through the nuance. I wanted to address this idea head on and offer a better way to approach things. And I didn't want to have to write 8 posts to do so.
Chris
· 2 years ago
Well I think you did a fine job to be honest. Certainly you've tackled a tangled knot of issues all wrapped into what often ends up as a very monolithic dichotomy. I guess my questions were more hypothetical, but I think you gave good answers that I agree with for the most part. I think one of the best hypothetical questions being asked by critics of the penal substitutionary view is, "How can it be just for an innocent man (Jesus) to get substituted for the wrongdoing of (many) others?" I also think another great hypothetical question gets at the inevitability of the "Fall" and its relationship to God's justice. "If sin were in a sense an inevitable result of our "otherness" as creatures, is there a sense in which God's wrath was poured out on Jesus as God?" Anyway, I consider this all very important and overlooked stuff, and you've definitely treated it with a good deal more discipline and care than most. Eight more posts would be great!
Chris
· 2 years ago
Well I think you did a fine job to be honest. Certainly you've tackled a tangled knot of issues all wrapped into what often ends up as a very monolithic dichotomy. I guess my questions were more hypothetical, but I think you gave good answers that I agree with for the most part. I think one of the best hypothetical questions being asked by critics of the penal substitutionary view is, "How can it be just for an innocent man (Jesus) to get substituted for the wrongdoing of (many) others?" I also think another great hypothetical question gets at the inevitability of the "Fall" and its relationship to God's justice. "If sin were in a sense an inevitable result of our "otherness" as creatures, is there a sense in which God's wrath was poured out on Jesus as God?" Anyway, I consider this all very important and overlooked stuff, and you've definitely treated it with a good deal more discipline and care than most. Eight more posts would be great!
Steve Treichler
· 2 years ago
God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God’s hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason–to shed his blood to assuage God’s anger.
Mark, man, that is a pretty easy 'straw man' to knock down about the reformed view of the atonement. Pretty unfair, I would say...
Again, I think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - you bash the reformers view of penal substitution, yet you said it satisifies the sin and even the anger of God. I am seriously confused. Are you refusing to put yourself into categories to avoid argumentation, or are you trying to be more 'comprehensive' in your view of the atonement?
I too do not like the oversimplification of the gospel message to just the vicarious atonement - however, it is the MOST IMPORTANT PART!
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4, NAS95).
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:16, 17, NAS95).
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18, NAS95).
Not to be that guywho puts proof texts into his commnets, but I really do see as primary importance the removal of our sins and the wrath of God (which is significant, powerful and aweful (see hell).
Is the gospel more than justification and imputation? Absolutely!!! It is so much more!!! And that is where many evangelicals err, and I agree with you - it is frustrating. Our incredible union with Jesus is so much more now than just getting our sins taken care of - adoption into his family, care for the least of these, environmental issues, justice, love, righteous anger over injustice, etc. However, the atonment is NEVER LESS than justification and imputation.
It seems to me, by your posts that you are trying to elevate the other (correct) view of the atonemnt and (for some reason I don't fully understand) take the reformed view of justification and downplay it or even dismiss it.
Just one man's morning thoughts. Thanks for the posts and I look forward to continued discussion.
By the way, where did my previous post on this issue go?
Steve Treichler
· 2 years ago
God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God’s hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason–to shed his blood to assuage God’s anger.
Mark, man, that is a pretty easy 'straw man' to knock down about the reformed view of the atonement. Pretty unfair, I would say...
Again, I think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - you bash the reformers view of penal substitution, yet you said it satisifies the sin and even the anger of God. I am seriously confused. Are you refusing to put yourself into categories to avoid argumentation, or are you trying to be more 'comprehensive' in your view of the atonement?
I too do not like the oversimplification of the gospel message to just the vicarious atonement - however, it is the MOST IMPORTANT PART!
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4, NAS95).
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:16, 17, NAS95).
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18, NAS95).
Not to be that guywho puts proof texts into his commnets, but I really do see as primary importance the removal of our sins and the wrath of God (which is significant, powerful and aweful (see hell).
Is the gospel more than justification and imputation? Absolutely!!! It is so much more!!! And that is where many evangelicals err, and I agree with you - it is frustrating. Our incredible union with Jesus is so much more now than just getting our sins taken care of - adoption into his family, care for the least of these, environmental issues, justice, love, righteous anger over injustice, etc. However, the atonment is NEVER LESS than justification and imputation.
It seems to me, by your posts that you are trying to elevate the other (correct) view of the atonemnt and (for some reason I don't fully understand) take the reformed view of justification and downplay it or even dismiss it.
Just one man's morning thoughts. Thanks for the posts and I look forward to continued discussion.
By the way, where did my previous post on this issue go?
Steve Treichler
· 2 years ago
Okay, I'm an airhead - I've already posted this last post on the other site - dude, I am so 42! No need to reply, Mark - you already did on the other post:
Steve Treichler
· 2 years ago
Okay, I'm an airhead - I've already posted this last post on the other site - dude, I am so 42! No need to reply, Mark - you already did on the other post:
All Comments
You might also want to touch on the emphasis of Heaven as our final resting place instead of a new Earth and Heaven as would befit the distinctions you have made here about the Cross. I seem to notice those who use the penal substitutionary view also tend to emphasize going to Heaven and that's it. They ignore, of course, the last couple chapters of Revelations where we get the whole kit all sparkling clean again.
Anna
You might also want to touch on the emphasis of Heaven as our final resting place instead of a new Earth and Heaven as would befit the distinctions you have made here about the Cross. I seem to notice those who use the penal substitutionary view also tend to emphasize going to Heaven and that's it. They ignore, of course, the last couple chapters of Revelations where we get the whole kit all sparkling clean again.
Anna
Mark I love this byte from Eugene Peterson's The Message...Colossians 1:15-18 ...
15-18We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God's original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body.
18-20He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
In my wild imagination, the Word from Genesis that spoke all, and holds all of creation together, and the Living Word that pitches his tent in the neighbourhood of humanity...hung on the Cross. The reality..." all of creation " hung in balance on the cross. We have turned Atonement and Redemption in a snapshot, when in reality it is beyond our wildest dreams. It is the very imagination of God.
When we see it as such Atonement, and redemption become much more than " penal substitution " and " satisfaction theory "...suddenly it is about every bit of creation...not just a free pass on the glory train home. It becomes the Missio Dei of restoration...making at-one-ment with creation and God.
What does this mean for the mission of the Church? The mission becomes more than saving souls. It becomes as much about global justice and equality, poverty, politics, the environment...it is bigger than our dreams.
Some how around a table of conversation, I find myself often alone in my thoughts...viewed by most of my friends as a heretic...some one who has lost his way.
Mark I love this byte from Eugene Peterson's The Message...Colossians 1:15-18 ...
15-18We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God's original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body.
18-20He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
In my wild imagination, the Word from Genesis that spoke all, and holds all of creation together, and the Living Word that pitches his tent in the neighbourhood of humanity...hung on the Cross. The reality..." all of creation " hung in balance on the cross. We have turned Atonement and Redemption in a snapshot, when in reality it is beyond our wildest dreams. It is the very imagination of God.
When we see it as such Atonement, and redemption become much more than " penal substitution " and " satisfaction theory "...suddenly it is about every bit of creation...not just a free pass on the glory train home. It becomes the Missio Dei of restoration...making at-one-ment with creation and God.
What does this mean for the mission of the Church? The mission becomes more than saving souls. It becomes as much about global justice and equality, poverty, politics, the environment...it is bigger than our dreams.
Some how around a table of conversation, I find myself often alone in my thoughts...viewed by most of my friends as a heretic...some one who has lost his way.
However, I don't see any need to speak of the passages from Romans 3 and 5 in a traditionally penal way. In fact, I'm not sure that you do either, even if you claim to. I think it is more helpful to say, as you do, that the 'punishment Christ receives is the full consequences of a sinful humanity.'
I've thought of it as a consequence of sin being death to humanity (understood in an Eastern sense). When God then chooses to unite with humanity to fight Sin, he consequently chooses to stand with them in the suffering of death.
Nevertheless, good stuff!
However, I don't see any need to speak of the passages from Romans 3 and 5 in a traditionally penal way. In fact, I'm not sure that you do either, even if you claim to. I think it is more helpful to say, as you do, that the 'punishment Christ receives is the full consequences of a sinful humanity.'
I've thought of it as a consequence of sin being death to humanity (understood in an Eastern sense). When God then chooses to unite with humanity to fight Sin, he consequently chooses to stand with them in the suffering of death.
Nevertheless, good stuff!
Blog posts are supposed to be conversation starters. I wish I had one of those super-popular blogs where the readers respond to one another so completely that I, as the author, don't need to do anything but sit back. Alas. Mine is the sort of blog where I have to respond to the inadequacies of my blog posts myself.
I confess...I reached for the low hanging fruit. I wanted to get right to the point and didn't want to detour through the land of intellectual rigor. Yes indeed there is more nuance to be mined here. If I had it to do all over again, I would have started with a post outlining the major views of the atonement--ever so briefly--and proceed to show where evangelicalism lands today. My beef is with the Satisfaction Theory--but also with the Penal view as it is popularly understood. Instead of bringing clarity to the debate, I left the poorly understood doctrine remain poorly understood so that I could continue with my arguments.
I'd like to think that I did more than simply shift priorities. I articulated a way of understanding penal substitution that fits more directly with the Christus Victor model. And I didn't diminish the nature of the substitution in the manner that many who elevate the Christus Victor are so likely to do.
Oh, by the way, I'm not sure it is possible to have a penal substitutionary view without wrath, unless God isn't the one doing the punishing. I'm willing to be challenged on this, but I don't know of any articulation of the view that DOESN'T include wrath.
Now, to briefly answer your questions:
If God was angry before the Atonement, who was he angry at, and why?
I'm not sure he was angry in the ways that we normally think of "anger." In other words, YHWH isn't like Zeus. It seems to me that the anger of God is/was an intense longing and jealousy for his people that was frustrated by the sins of those people.
Did his anger change after the Atonement or not?
Yes. I believe so. Because the nature of the covenant and the nature of the "people of God" changed. In addition, I believe Jesus helps us understand the nature of God's anger and love towards his people.
If he was not angry about sin, why not?
He was angry about sin.
In the first passage you quoted from Romans above, it says that God delayed the punishment of sin until the Atonement. If Jesus was punished in the Atonement, was there wrath involved or not?
Yes. Indeed. I'm not denying that God has wrath. I'm just clarifying what that "wrath" might be. The problem is that popular Evangelical culture has a picture of what the wrath of God looks like:
God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God's hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason--to shed his blood to assuage God's anger.
My whole post is an attempt to deconstruct this understanding. Not destroy (because there is indeed some truth in this), but deconstruct and reframe. That is why I skipped through the nuance. I wanted to address this idea head on and offer a better way to approach things. And I didn't want to have to write 8 posts to do so.
Blog posts are supposed to be conversation starters. I wish I had one of those super-popular blogs where the readers respond to one another so completely that I, as the author, don't need to do anything but sit back. Alas. Mine is the sort of blog where I have to respond to the inadequacies of my blog posts myself.
I confess...I reached for the low hanging fruit. I wanted to get right to the point and didn't want to detour through the land of intellectual rigor. Yes indeed there is more nuance to be mined here. If I had it to do all over again, I would have started with a post outlining the major views of the atonement--ever so briefly--and proceed to show where evangelicalism lands today. My beef is with the Satisfaction Theory--but also with the Penal view as it is popularly understood. Instead of bringing clarity to the debate, I left the poorly understood doctrine remain poorly understood so that I could continue with my arguments.
I'd like to think that I did more than simply shift priorities. I articulated a way of understanding penal substitution that fits more directly with the Christus Victor model. And I didn't diminish the nature of the substitution in the manner that many who elevate the Christus Victor are so likely to do.
Oh, by the way, I'm not sure it is possible to have a penal substitutionary view without wrath, unless God isn't the one doing the punishing. I'm willing to be challenged on this, but I don't know of any articulation of the view that DOESN'T include wrath.
Now, to briefly answer your questions:
If God was angry before the Atonement, who was he angry at, and why?
I'm not sure he was angry in the ways that we normally think of "anger." In other words, YHWH isn't like Zeus. It seems to me that the anger of God is/was an intense longing and jealousy for his people that was frustrated by the sins of those people.
Did his anger change after the Atonement or not?
Yes. I believe so. Because the nature of the covenant and the nature of the "people of God" changed. In addition, I believe Jesus helps us understand the nature of God's anger and love towards his people.
If he was not angry about sin, why not?
He was angry about sin.
In the first passage you quoted from Romans above, it says that God delayed the punishment of sin until the Atonement. If Jesus was punished in the Atonement, was there wrath involved or not?
Yes. Indeed. I'm not denying that God has wrath. I'm just clarifying what that "wrath" might be. The problem is that popular Evangelical culture has a picture of what the wrath of God looks like:
God hates sin so much that he wants to send us to hell. Which is eternal torture at God's hands. And so, he poured out all of his hatred, anger, venomous rage, and grumpiness on Jesus. His anger was so bad that it demanded blood. And Jesus was born for just that reason--to shed his blood to assuage God's anger.
My whole post is an attempt to deconstruct this understanding. Not destroy (because there is indeed some truth in this), but deconstruct and reframe. That is why I skipped through the nuance. I wanted to address this idea head on and offer a better way to approach things. And I didn't want to have to write 8 posts to do so.
Mark, man, that is a pretty easy 'straw man' to knock down about the reformed view of the atonement. Pretty unfair, I would say...
Again, I think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - you bash the reformers view of penal substitution, yet you said it satisifies the sin and even the anger of God. I am seriously confused. Are you refusing to put yourself into categories to avoid argumentation, or are you trying to be more 'comprehensive' in your view of the atonement?
I too do not like the oversimplification of the gospel message to just the vicarious atonement - however, it is the MOST IMPORTANT PART!
Not to be that guywho puts proof texts into his commnets, but I really do see as primary importance the removal of our sins and the wrath of God (which is significant, powerful and aweful (see hell).
Is the gospel more than justification and imputation? Absolutely!!! It is so much more!!! And that is where many evangelicals err, and I agree with you - it is frustrating. Our incredible union with Jesus is so much more now than just getting our sins taken care of - adoption into his family, care for the least of these, environmental issues, justice, love, righteous anger over injustice, etc. However, the atonment is NEVER LESS than justification and imputation.
It seems to me, by your posts that you are trying to elevate the other (correct) view of the atonemnt and (for some reason I don't fully understand) take the reformed view of justification and downplay it or even dismiss it.
Just one man's morning thoughts. Thanks for the posts and I look forward to continued discussion.
By the way, where did my previous post on this issue go?
Mark, man, that is a pretty easy 'straw man' to knock down about the reformed view of the atonement. Pretty unfair, I would say...
Again, I think you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth - you bash the reformers view of penal substitution, yet you said it satisifies the sin and even the anger of God. I am seriously confused. Are you refusing to put yourself into categories to avoid argumentation, or are you trying to be more 'comprehensive' in your view of the atonement?
I too do not like the oversimplification of the gospel message to just the vicarious atonement - however, it is the MOST IMPORTANT PART!
Not to be that guywho puts proof texts into his commnets, but I really do see as primary importance the removal of our sins and the wrath of God (which is significant, powerful and aweful (see hell).
Is the gospel more than justification and imputation? Absolutely!!! It is so much more!!! And that is where many evangelicals err, and I agree with you - it is frustrating. Our incredible union with Jesus is so much more now than just getting our sins taken care of - adoption into his family, care for the least of these, environmental issues, justice, love, righteous anger over injustice, etc. However, the atonment is NEVER LESS than justification and imputation.
It seems to me, by your posts that you are trying to elevate the other (correct) view of the atonemnt and (for some reason I don't fully understand) take the reformed view of justification and downplay it or even dismiss it.
Just one man's morning thoughts. Thanks for the posts and I look forward to continued discussion.
By the way, where did my previous post on this issue go?