|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Early Church and PSA
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I am currently involved in a study group that has been considering the origins of the various atonement theories. Regarding PSA the conventional view seems to be that it developed in the Reformation period out of Anselm's Satisfaction theory, and was not, therefore, part of the theology of the early church. Trawling through the internet, however, I came across an article by a certain Michael J. Vlach, entitled Penal Substitution in Church History <http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf>, which argues contrarily that it was understood and propagated by some of the church fathers. As an innocent in these matters I would welcome comments from better-schooled Shipmates as to current thinking on the origins of PSA. I should emphasise this post is not intended to start a rancorous discussion on the merits of PSA but to bring enlightenment as to its emergence in theological thought.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I realize this is the beginning of an ad hominem argument, but in searching for information on this publication, The Masters Seminary Journal, it seems to be the author may have brought an axe to the grinding wheel, in addition to his evidence.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
From what I can gather some Patristic references can be interpreted in a PSA kind of way but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of emphasis on it until much later. Anselm certainly wouldn't have understood it in the same way as contemporary evangelicals
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
My understanding was that the early church taught/ utilized all five of the major biblical images for the atonement, including substitution. The shift at the Reformation was to emphasizing PSA as the sole understanding of the atonement.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I understand that although substitution is early the penal side of PSA was later.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
cliffdweller, see, you CAN read my mind.
PSA is in the words and mind of Paul, Peter and not least Jesus, how could it not be in the in the mind of the Church from the beginning?
How could it not have been in Jesus'?
[ 29. March 2015, 08:58: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the answers simple. If you agree with PSA you'll find evidence for it in Patristic writings. If you don't, you won't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I think Jesus' death was representative, not substitutionary
If we are not punished for our sins but by our sins then the penal element is ruled out.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't agree with it at all and it's blindingly obviously unquestionably glaring in the mind of Jesus and His first followers.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And we're not even punished by them.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Miss Amanda hates to seem dense, but she assumes you're not talking about Prostate Specific Antigen. What in blazes, then, is PSA?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
aka for many Evangelicals the favoured (and far too often sole) model of how Christ's death resulted in the forgiveness of our sins.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't agree with it at all and it's blindingly obviously unquestionably glaring in the mind of Jesus and His first followers.
[citation needed]
Could you cite an example or two of when Peter, Paul, or Jesus explicitly refers to Jesus' role as being punished in our place? If it's blindingly obvious this shouldn't be hard, but the bare assertion doesn't seem to add much value to the discussion at hand.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
The obvious explicitly substitutionary* ref is Isaiah 53 on, which of course is OT, so you then need to see if the early church identified it with Jesus.
I know that's not quite answering the question, but it's the obvious first thought (possibly because the passage is so long and repetitive, whereas the equiv paul thing would be one link in a chain).
*in a weakened sense there's clearly some penal here too (though how it relates to 'pure PSA' would be more complex).
The broad brush strokes of something can be seen at many places, Opening at random in Ephesians you have the juxtaposition of "children of wrath...dead in our trespasses, made us alive with christ"..."and a bit further "reconcile us both to God...through the cross".
This of course is not explicitly PSA/CV/... (in fact the first contradicts* the normal version of those as the Father is the principle hero, although I suppose it would work with the cosmic-childabuse version of PSA). But it exposes the problem that atonement** theories are needed for***.
*as an exact model.
**I know this is begging the question, (but when I tried to avoid it, things just got messy)
***and leaving it as TAMO has the same q's.
Col 2 has a part (immediately following a healthy chunk of representative stuff "in him ..." too and preceeding a bit that is rather CVish "by triumphing over them") that is quite Pxx ish "Cancelling the record of debt...nailing it too the cross"
And in Corinthian's "As first imnportance...Christ died for our sins". Again not the classic formulation of PSA, but decidedly easier to map onto that than many others.
While 1 Peter has the rather substitutey ("suffered, the rightous for the unrightous, to bring us to God")
And I'm not sure how I forgot "For even the son of man, did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (which again isn't straight PSA, it depends on who the ransom is owed to, and ...) combined with the parables about debtors...
So not sure if there's an explicit self-contained purely PSA* passage in the NT, bit I am pretty sure you could build it up from the metaphors.
*or indeed for any of the others (at the appropriate level of detail)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I wouldn't conflate ransom and PSA, they're two separate images. For PSA you're looking for the image of a law court/ legal proceedings-- as opposed to the image of a temple sacrifice (satisfaction) or slave block (ransom). Most of that imagery is in Paul, mostly Romans. (In Romans, Paul seems to go back and forth between several images, seemingly supporting my notion that the early church favored using all five images to portray different aspects of the atonement).
quote:
• Rom. 5:16: And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
• 2 Cor. 5:21: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Show me where it isn't Bostonman. I promise you this, when I do, you can't possibly see it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The interesting thing, though, Cliffdweller, is that having discussed these verses in Romans with Orthodox people - both in real life and online - it's clear that they don't 'read' Paul the same way as we do.
I've even heard Greek people say that the more juridical aspects sound 'weaker' in the Greek than they do in translation - but NT Greek scholars would have to advise on that one ...
I'm not saying these aspects aren't there, simply observing how it's possible for different sections of Christendom to come to different conclusions from the self-same texts.
This suggests to me that a lot of it comes down to our particular interpretative frameworks.
Could it be that Westerners are more inclined to latch onto the more juridical aspects whereas those from more Eastern Mediterranean backgrounds and mindsets are less inclined to emphasise these but latch onto other aspects?
It's something that has intrigued me for some time now.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The interesting thing, though, Cliffdweller, is that having discussed these verses in Romans with Orthodox people - both in real life and online - it's clear that they don't 'read' Paul the same way as we do.
I've even heard Greek people say that the more juridical aspects sound 'weaker' in the Greek than they do in translation - but NT Greek scholars would have to advise on that one ...
I'm not saying these aspects aren't there, simply observing how it's possible for different sections of Christendom to come to different conclusions from the self-same texts.
This suggests to me that a lot of it comes down to our particular interpretative frameworks.
Could it be that Westerners are more inclined to latch onto the more juridical aspects whereas those from more Eastern Mediterranean backgrounds and mindsets are less inclined to emphasise these but latch onto other aspects?
It's something that has intrigued me for some time now.
I'm sure that's true.
And related to that is the problem that there are images-- metaphors-- with all the inherent ambiguity of interpreting a figurative reference. They then will all the more sound and be interpreted differently in different cultural context-- just as "Jesus the Good Shepherd" is going to sound a lot different in 21st c. urban America than 1st c. rural Israel. The problem comes when we (as many conservatives do) approach them literalisticcally-- making this a literal transactional act, rather than a figurative metaphor for something far more transcendent.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Show me where it isn't Bostonman. I promise you this, when I do, you can't possibly see it.
How about you shows us where you do see it?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Show me where it isn't Bostonman. I promise you this, when I do, you can't possibly see it.
How about you shows us where you do see it?
I'll take the bait.
Here is a clear example of where PSA isn't in Jesus' description of the Passion:
quote:
Mark 8:31 (NRSV)
“Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
You asked for an example where it isn't; here you go. Where, in this saying of Jesus, do you see penal substitutionary atonement? He does not say "must undergo great suffering in place of sinners" or something. There's no substitution. There's no punishment. This is part of Mark's trope of the "rejected prophet."
Here's another example:
quote:
Romans 5:18 (NRSV)
“Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.”
Adams's trespass led to condemnation. Jesus' act of righteousness leads to justification/acquittal. This is a legal metaphor, but it is not a metaphor of Jesus being punished in our place; it is a metaphor of Jesus' death on the cross providing a persuasive legal argument that leads to a judgment of "not guilty."
Compare to Chrysostom's comment: "The free gift is much greater than the judgment. . . . For it was not just Adam’s sin which was done away with by the free gift but all other sins as well. And it was not just that sin was done away with—justification was given, too. So Christ did not merely do the same amount of good that Adam did of harm, but far more and greater good."
Or Theodore of Mopsuestia: "here is one great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gift in Christ. Adam’s sin brought punishment on all those who came after him, and so they died. But the free gift is different. For not only did it take effect in the case of those who came afterward; it also took away the sins of those who had gone before. It is therefore much greater, because where sin harmed those who came after, grace rescued not only those who came after but those who had transgressed before as well."
In each of these, Jesus is an active agent who is performing a good act rather than receiving a punishment.
So there are two of many examples in which PSA isn't.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Can I remind shipmates that my original question was not to discuss the merits of PSA but to ask whether the theory was articulated in the early church? I am well aware that there are biblical texts and passages which are quoted in PSA's support, but they only become an articulated theory when they are consciously brought together to construct an explicit theoretical framework. (The same, of course, can be said for any theory of the atonement). My question is essentially one relating to the history of the theology of the atonement.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Can I remind shipmates that my original question was not to discuss the merits of PSA but to ask whether the theory was articulated in the early church? I am well aware that there are biblical texts and passages which are quoted in PSA's support, but they only become an articulated theory when they are consciously brought together to construct an explicit theoretical framework. (The same, of course, can be said for any theory of the atonement). My question is essentially one relating to the history of the theology of the atonement.
This strand of the discussion began with Martin's claim that Peter, Paul, and Jesus held it, so of course the early church did. The rest has been about whether Jesus and Paul did, in fact, hold this view; in other words, did the history of PSA begin with them? I would consider Paul and Mark to be authors in the early church who are relevant to that question.
If you'd rather we can start a generation later with Clement or Ignatius or somebody, and see how Clement quotes Isaiah 52 not to make that point that Christ suffered on behalf of our sins, but that “if the Lord so humbled himself [as to suffer], what should we do, who through him have come under the yoke of his grace?” (1Clement 16:17)
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Could it be that Westerners are more inclined to latch onto the more juridical aspects whereas those from more Eastern Mediterranean backgrounds and mindsets are less inclined to emphasise these but latch onto other aspects?
It's something that has intrigued me for some time now.
Indeed it could. Jesus's death was certainly substitutionary, but in what sense was this penal? For Anselm, the judicial context was satisfying feudal obligations. Calvin inclines towards PSA in asserting that Christ must appease God's wrath towards us. Charles Hodge was quite explicit that sin can only be pardoned on the ground of forensic penal satisfaction. He derives this, for example from Gal 3:13 (Christ became a curse for us). God hung Jesus on the tree to bear our sins.
Hodge reads the New Testament through the lens of the judicial system of his day. It makes sense to him to read "sacrifice" as a payment to appease God. This would not be the natural reading of someone, say, who sees sacrifice as a means of breaking a curse, renewing a covenant or purifying a sinner.
PSA is, in the contxt of our judicial system, delightfully intuitive and easy to grasp, even for very young children. The problem, as with any image for the atonement, is to take the details too far.
In terms of whether Jesus saw his death in this light - well I doubt it. Robin Collins once made the point with his celebrated re-write of the parable of the prodigal son. The father does not say that he can't simply forgive the prodigal (which would be an affront to the moral order of the universe). As an alternative ending, Collins has the elder brother offering to do extra work on the land to pay off his brother's debt. The father accepts the debt is cleared when the elder brother dies of exhaustion.
PSA is certainly a useful missional metaphor, attempting to connect the Gospel with a particular cultural milieu. As a theory of the atonement it creates for me too many difficulties.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks Drew. That's interesting. I would have had you down as a big PSA fan. I admire your candour.
I agree on the neatness and simplicity of this particular model. So much so, it can be hard to imagine the Gospel being presented in any other terms.
But in terms of the OP it does seem a late development
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Can I remind shipmates that my original question was not to discuss the merits of PSA but to ask whether the theory was articulated in the early church? I am well aware that there are biblical texts and passages which are quoted in PSA's support, but they only become an articulated theory when they are consciously brought together to construct an explicit theoretical framework. (The same, of course, can be said for any theory of the atonement). My question is essentially one relating to the history of the theology of the atonement.
This strand of the discussion began with Martin's claim that Peter, Paul, and Jesus held it, so of course the early church did. The rest has been about whether Jesus and Paul did, in fact, hold this view; in other words, did the history of PSA begin with them? I would consider Paul and Mark to be authors in the early church who are relevant to that question.
If you'd rather we can start a generation later with Clement or Ignatius or somebody, and see how Clement quotes Isaiah 52 not to make that point that Christ suffered on behalf of our sins, but that “if the Lord so humbled himself [as to suffer], what should we do, who through him have come under the yoke of his grace?” (1Clement 16:17)
Essentially what we probably need to hear from Kwesi at this point is do you really want to know the history of penal substitutionary atonement-- or just substitution? I think we can show a pretty clear thread of substitution along with the other 4 images in the early church's teaching on the atonement. Where we'll have some debate, though, is whether that's penal substitutionary atonement. Can you clarify which way you're wanting to gear the discussion?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks Drew. That's interesting. I would have had you down as a big PSA fan. I admire your candour.
I agree on the neatness and simplicity of this particular model. So much so, it can be hard to imagine the Gospel being presented in any other terms.
But in terms of the OP it does seem a late development
Gamaliel - it's complicated.
While I think of it, there seems to be another issue with PSA. If God demands punishment for sin then he seems to be bound to satisfy some principle outside of himself - universal justice - which creates all kinds of difficulties.
But I must be careful not to high jack Kwesi's question. Cliff dweller is right to ask whether Kwesi wants to focus on substitution or penal substitution, I refer my honourable friends to Cliffdweller's last post.
Yours aye,
Drew
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, Drew. I don't wish to hijack Kwesi's thread but I di want you to know how helpful I found your post.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Good man Bostonman. Fair play to you. That was my FIRST verse. 12th word.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Drewthealexander quote:
Cliff dweller is right to ask whether Kwesi wants to focus on substitution or penal substitution, I refer my honourable friends to Cliffdweller's last post.
Shipmates, I was specifically concerned with penal substitution. It may be, of course, that some of those claiming penal substitution to have been propagated in the early church were confusing it with other forms of substitution. That might be part of the discussion.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
Matthew 16:21 (NRSV)
Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection
21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Romans 3:23-26 "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus." (NRSV)
Romans 4:25 (NIV) He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Romans 5:16-18 (NIV)
16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
2 Corinthians 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (RSV)
Galatians 3:10, 13 "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.' ... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'" (RSV)
1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."(RSV)
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God." (RSV)
Hebrews 10 (NIV)
Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All
10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.
4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.
9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
To us.
[ 29. March 2015, 22:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Martin,
Those verses are strong on substitution, but very weak on penal. Where is the court-room, the judge declaring the fine for our sins paid by Christ?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
No, it isn't. That's a Protestant reading back into the Old Testament. Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're divided by disposition guys, that's all. You're right Alan of course, no such formal sentence exists in the court of Heaven.
Mine's nasty.
And Dafyd, if any dumb Prod can read that in to these verses then EVERYONE else, historically, based on their culture, one very anthropic - monkey - culture of penal 'justice', including the writers and Jesus, did. All those nice Greeks and Romans especially. Regardless of the rare 'enlightened' extremely remote elite. And even then.
NONE of which makes it so at all. It isn't. For God is love.
But projecting modern liberal niceness back on to the giants on whose shoulders we stand is ... folly.
Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11—"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities." (RSV)
If won't see it, you can't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"upon him was the chastisement that made us whole" is, it seems to me, the closest the Bible comes to penal substitution. And, that assumes that the chastisement Christ bore was the penalty for our transgressions. So, penal substitution is there, but it's one verse in the prophets - albeit one that is clearly ascribed to Christ in the New Testament (Philip and the Ethiopian Eunach - but even there we don't get an exposition of this passage, just that the Servant is Jesus Christ).
If penal substition was widely accepted by the earliest Church, and especially if that was how Jesus understood and explained His death, then it would surely be referenced considerably more often and more clearly.
We don't even get many references to God as a judge in a court of law (quite a few in a judge of quality - the plumbline is the wall straight, the farmer judging the value of fruit trees by how much they produce etc). And, the references that are there relate mostly to dispensing justice, punishing others for their sins against us rather than punishing us for our own sins, something like the parable of the judge who is hounded day and night by the widow demanding justice which is eventually dispensed just to get her out of his hair.
I wonder if one of the reasons the image isn't used much is because the image of a human judge who is fair and unbiased would have been largely unknown?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Dafyd, if any dumb Prod can read that in to these verses then EVERYONE else, historically, based on their culture, one very anthropic - monkey - culture of penal 'justice', including the writers and Jesus, did.
That doesn't follow. It isn't true.
quote:
If won't see it, you can't.
That line of argument can be turned round on you.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am no scholar in historical theology so am not well qualified to answer Kwesi's question.
But it seems to me that theology is usually couched in terms of the prevailing 'philosophy' of the day. On that score PSA is late ( Anselm?).
It also seems to me that we confuse vicarious action ( on behalf of) with substitutionary action ( instead of).
A classic case of misreading comes in Mark 4 v 12 where Jesus (? in reality the Early Church) speaks of the difficulty in understanding the parables. The usual translation to account for the blindness of the disciples comes at v 12 where the word "lest" is problematic. If it is translated as "unless" (pace Jeremias) then the matter becomes clear and God is absolved from the responsibility of causing their blindness and deafness "
An additional complication is that the Biblical writers did not distinguish between purpose and consequence. Since they thought that God wills all things they identified consequence with purpose.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Of course Dafyd. It's true because we're narrow, literal minded, weak, ignorant, frightened monkeys.
Even Jesus believed He HAD to die. Did He believe above all that it was simply to break through to us? All the good and timeless meaning we extract from it? That it was pure sacrifice WITHOUT substitution for ... penalty?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Martin, there are atonement theories other than PSA and Moral Exemplar: theories that take account of the objective realities achieved by the Paschal event, and yet are not penal, or even, necessarily, substitutionary. Count me amongst those who are sceptical of the biblical support for PSA. Indeed, one passage often cited in support of PSA, Romans 3:25-26, seems to, actually, be an argument against the logic behind behind it. "No one can accuse God of ignoring wrongdoing, when you look at the restoration of all things implied in the events of Holy week". It's almost as if Paul had heard some voices raising the "soft on sin" argument, and was keen to cut it off in the bud.
[ 30. March 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus believed He HAD to die.
Yes. But, why did He believe He had to die? To pay some ransom, to someone? To take His battle with death right down into Hades itself? To take our sins and carry them into the grave where they no longer have a hold on us? To be a passover sacrifice, with His blood on the doorposts of our lives so we need no longer fear the angel of death?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's true because we're narrow, literal minded, weak, ignorant, frightened monkeys.
You're not so narrow, literal-minded, weak, ignorant, or frightened that you think PSA is true. I don't think PSA is true. It is just possible that Jesus and one or two of the Apostles were less narrow, literal-minded, weak, ignorant, or frightened than we are.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus believed He HAD to die.
Why bring convoluted theology into this?
Jesus believed He had to die. In the same way as anyone driving into a concrete wall at 90mph knows they will die.
Jesus knew that His confrontation with sinful human nature could only have one outcome. His death was inevitable.
Jesus was simply being true to Himself.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
No, it isn't. That's a Protestant reading back into the Old Testament. Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
Actually it would be penal satisfaction.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
An additional complication is that the Biblical writers did not distinguish between purpose and consequence. Since they thought that God wills all things they identified consequence with purpose.
As a broad generalization, this simply is not true. There are abundant places in Scripture where God is shown to be unhappy with the outcomes, with human decisions that were made, etc. There are even a surprisingly large number of verses where we see the phrase "God repented" or regretted something God had done (e.g. appointing Saul king) because of the outcome.
I don't deny there are texts that fit your description, but they are far far from the whole, and therefore don't really provide a rubric for understanding these particular passages.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
No, it isn't. That's a Protestant reading back into the Old Testament. Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
Actually it would be penal satisfaction.
I'm not sure about that, cliffdweller.
On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest moves to the Holy of Holies - the dwelling place of God in microcosm. The words used are "for a covering", as if sin damaged the fabric of creation, and this action mended it. There are two goats involved. One is sacrificed and whose blood is sprinkled on the altar (and is then eaten). The second is the scapegoat, which "takes away the sin of the world". Or, I guess, "becomes a curse".
At its root, sacrifice involves a re-dedication of something of the bounty of God back to God. The Jewish concept of Atonement is phenomenally important here I agree. Any theories of atonement - whatever else they do - have to fly with this one ritual and its associated meaning. Right now, I see nothing penal in there, let alone things done to satisfy God. The action is entirely from God.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
My point was just that the temple imagery of the scapegoat made it satisfaction, not substitution.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
Actually it would be penal satisfaction. [/QB][/QUOTE]
If you think the scapegoat is being sent into exile instead of the Israelites then it would be substitution. I don't think that's what is going on there, and it's certainly not a good explanation for what Jesus is doing on the cross unless you think the whole incarnation is an exile and therefore a punishment (which is I think not at all a traditional Christian reading and quite possibly gnostic).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Guys, if I asked anyone in my last 4 Anglican congos why Jesus had to die they would all say for their sins. Instead of them. And if I went to any Roman or Greek church in town (and we have 2 Orthodox) they WOULDN'T?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Guys, if I asked anyone in my last 4 Anglican congos why Jesus had to die they would all say for their sins. Instead of them. And if I went to any Roman or Greek church in town (and we have 2 Orthodox) they WOULDN'T?
They would probably say "in order that we might have eternal life", I would have thought. Quite possibly, so would the anglican congos to which you refer, since John 3:16 is normally the first point of encounter for people with the Gospel.
[ 30. March 2015, 21:12: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
