Rowland Croucher wrote:

I don't want to prolong this discussion too much but I think there's a question which hasn't been answered directly yet. (If it was the comment was too oblique for this brain of mine :-): ===>>> Why can't we have a theology of substitutionary atonement *without* the notion of 'satisfaction'?

Nathan replied:

I suppose we could, but then we would be using the same name for two different theologies, and that always leads to confusion.

I think though that you are on to something important. It seems to me that part of what may be happening for David and perhaps some others on this issue is that questions of vicarious suffering, sacrifice, punishment, and atonement have been conjoined in this particular doctrine for so long that it is difficult for us to recognise that they do not usually appear so conjoined in scripture.

There is lots of biblical material which describes Jesus as suffering vicariously for us, but it is only if what he suffers is a punishment required to satisfy the Lord's offended honour that we are dealing with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary atonement is a form of vicarious suffering, but not all vicarious suffering is substitutionary atonement.

It is even quite possible to talk about Christ receiving the punishment for sin without getting into the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. We then have to ask questions about why a punishment is necessary, but the doctrine of substitutionary atonement gives a very specific answer to that question: it is necessary because God's honour has been offended and it is not possible for God to forgive until his honour has been satisfied by punishing someone - even if it is an innocent scapegoat. Romans 3:25, which is the one passage I acknowledged in my post yesterday to be supportive of the substitutionary atonement view, still doesn't seem to be giving quite that answer although it probably leaves room for it. That passage seems to be arguing that if God lets sin go unpunished forever he lays himself open to a charge of hypocrisy and injustice and so he has to find some way of being seen to punish sin. Something like that anyway.

What Rowland and Keith have pointed out to us - that judicial and sacrificial metaphors for the death of Jesus are significant in the Bible and are therefore important for us - is absolutely correct, and I'm not shying away from that. But substitutionary atonement is just one very specific form of those metaphors and it has very little biblical support. I'm not urging us to throw out the whole category; just one of the items in it.

It is strange to see evangelicals so passionately clinging to a medieval Catholic doctrine, but I think it has been so dominant for so long that can't see past the syllogisms that Rowland has mentioned. We now see everything the Bible says about sacrifice through this lens; we see everything it says about vicarious suffering through this lens, we see everything it says about atonement through this lens, and we see everything it says about punishment for sin through this lens. And to borrow a metaphor from Keith Dyer, the lens has become a bloodshot eye which is now blinding us to the subtlety, variety and beauty of the biblical teachings.

I think that we evangelicals should be able to do more justice to the Bible than that, and certainly more justice to our God than that.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

_____________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church Melbourne, Australia