A pastor-friend wrote:

Any single theory of the Atonement cannot be expected to bear the full weight of what God has done for us in Christ. Nor can it be expected to convey a complete revelation of God. That is why the New Testament offers us a number of theories and images, including substitutionary atonement. I think we are in agreement on that point Nathan. Let's not give up any of the biblical images available to us as we seek to proclaim and explain the message of Christ and his death for us.

Nathan responded:

Well, let's not give any of them up unless our context has changed to such an extent that some of them are now more likely to bring God into disrepute than honour. I think substitutionary atonement falls into that category.

I'm a bit dubious as to whether it was ever a really good image, but at least in the middle ages when it was first popularised, there was an existing social structure to which it could be compared. God could be seen as the ultimate feudal landlord. When his honour was offended by a transgression by one of his citizens, he demanded that someone be made to pay in order that his honour be restored. A substitute was acceptable because the blood price was not really about punishing or correcting the offender, but about restoring the honour of the landlord.

But what can we helpfully compare it to now? I can't think of anything. Your class detention illustration only half works. No modern teacher is going to accept the invitation to punish a substitute, because in our society, the punishment is about punishing and correcting the offender, not about restoring the honour of the teacher. If you heard that a teacher was knowingly punishing an innocent child who offered to take the rap for everyone else, you'd withdraw your children from the school and have the teacher up before an ethics board. Our society's closest parallel to the feudal system would be the so-called honour killings that take place in some cultural groups, but that surely illustrates why substitutionary atonement is no longer a helpful image. Who wants to risk comparing God to the honour killers?

The theory of substitutionary atonement works as a way of portraying Jesus as a saving hero only if we are willing to portray God the Father as unable or unwilling to absorb the offense and forgive without making someone pay in blood. That is a major problem because God asks us to be more gracious than that ourselves, and that leaves God open to the charge of hypocrisy. Furthermore, the theory only works if we are willing to portray God as doing things that we would regard as unethical or even criminal if we did them - punishing innocent people in order to protect his own honour.

I can't think of any positive thing that substitutionary atonement adds to our understanding of God that could not just as easily be established by less problematic theories. Can anyone describe what is good about it that justifies its use in our day and age? Is there anything good it says that cannot be better said by other theories that don't slander God the Father?

There are other useful substitutionary illustrations that work well. The famous story of Maximilian Kolbe is a wonderful example. In Auschwitz in 1941 , he stepped forward and voluntarily had himself placed in a starvation cell and killed to save a fellow prisoner who had been condemned to death by the camp authorities after a successful escape by a fellow prisoner. Now that story could be used as an illustration of substitutionary atonement only at the expense of portraying God the Father as a Nazi Concentration Camp Commander. But it works fabulously as an illustration of the price Christ is willing to pay in order to save us from the satanic powers of hatred, evil and death which have us in their grip. It is a substitutionary theory, but instead of Christ dying to satisfy the wrath of God, he is taking in his own body the full force of the world's bitterness and hostility and making the ultimate sacrifice in his his endeavours to provide a way for us to escape from the evil which would otherwise destroy us. His resurrection ensures that he has not just staved off destruction for a little longer, but has broken the power of death and blazed a trail through to the promised land of new life.

That's the other problem with the theory of substitutionary atonement: it has no need of the resurrection. Does this medieval theory really have anything going for it?

Peace and hope,

Nathan

_____________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church