All the verses you mentioned still do not mention that Jesus paid the "penalty" for sin, or that sins were transferred. The way Jesus took upon sins was through the incarnation, by taking a mortal body inherited from Mary, He could be tempted in all sins. He conquered those temptations, and thus conquered hell. That is how He redeemed humanity. Sins cannot be removed unless it is done through repentance, and in repentance Jesus works within us to remove them.
Doug, I resist the view that incarnation = atonement, because it lessens the cross. Also, I'm not convinced that PSA = payment. The language of sin as debt and the idea of a payment is found in the OT and NT, but not so much in relation to Jesus's death. But that God "condemned" sin in the flesh is clearly penal/punitive and Jesus become a "acursed" for us, in our stead, is also punitive and substitutionary.
You can explain the reason why God had to become incarnate in human form by the fact by doing so, He could fight directly against temptations originating from hell, which were the sins and transgressions of the whole world as Jesus fought against all of hell in this manner until He conquered it. The cross was simply His last temptation before His body was made completely Divine. That by fighting temptations, and glorifying Himself He saved humanity, He declares in John 17:19, afterwards He works the same in repentance in us. PSA runs into several logical issues as well as it goes counter to passages like Ex. 23:7 and Ezek. 18 in the OT, and I am telling Jews that they do not have to reject Christianity because of this. PSA lessens the need for repentance, and encourages people to believe they can convert once and then do nothing else. There is a whole branch of Christianity, the Orthodox church, which does not follow this kind of theory. The Christus Victor view is more logical than PSA and can explain all the verses you quote.
agreed, the correct atonement theory is all of them at once since they are all in scripture and don't contradict each other. PSA isn't the only atonement theory that has problems if you don't understand the trinity btw. I think moral influence theory also deflates without a trinity. A God who sits there on a priveledged throne wondering why we can't get our act together and sends their child to be tortured and die so we can admire his good example and do the same is a very different God to one that takes off their privelege, does good at great personal cost even to death and even has to learn what it is like to have to depend on God and trust Him.
PSA doesn't make sense to me, regardless of how Paul describes it. How does Jesus die "in our place," if we still die? And death only lasted for two days - the sacrifice was reversed almost immediately. And other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering, so Jesus didn't drink it for them. Further, God punishes sin of his chosen people (Moses, David) AND nation (Israel) for sin - is there any text that says God will punish Jesus INSTEAD of them later on? And NT verses also suggest that we will be repaid for our deeds, both good and bad - not a substitute.
It makes me question the notion that Jesus took our punishment on the cross in the first place. What did Jesus experience that we get to avoid? Why did Jesus suggest that other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering? I see his death more as representative than a substitution.
Although I think there are different aspects to Jesus' death, it is difficult to deny the substitutionary atonement teaching of the NT. Scholars such as Simon Gathercole present a strong case. Perhaps 'punishment' is the wrong word to use, but rather 'wrath'. Wrath is God's just consequences on sin. If you are forgiven, you wont face such wrath as Jesus has already experienced it.
Nuance. Definitely. Just leave out the punishment. Consequences if you like but there’s no word for punishment in the Bible particularly where the author is God. Humans punish. God takes on the consequences. I’ll put my money on Job’s final refusal to be the referee.
The trinitarian requirement makes Jesus complicit in his own offering (John 10.18) in the same way that Abraham and Isaac went up the hill 'together' (Gen 22). Without the willingness of the Son, some would be somewhat right to condemn the child abuse.
First, as a 61-year-old with a family history of prostate cancer, I do a double-take every time I see "PSA" in this context.
To the point, I was not aware PSA theology had become emphasized to that extent. At the same time, for whatever reason, it is the only Atonement theology I ever hear taught. Other views are not derided, they are ignored.
Hi Mike
I believe Jesus has to be God to be an adequate payment for sins against God? Am I mistaken? Is there a verse that supports that view?
Thanks
I agree with you, I think it's the logic of atonement: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
All the verses you mentioned still do not mention that Jesus paid the "penalty" for sin, or that sins were transferred. The way Jesus took upon sins was through the incarnation, by taking a mortal body inherited from Mary, He could be tempted in all sins. He conquered those temptations, and thus conquered hell. That is how He redeemed humanity. Sins cannot be removed unless it is done through repentance, and in repentance Jesus works within us to remove them.
Doug, I resist the view that incarnation = atonement, because it lessens the cross. Also, I'm not convinced that PSA = payment. The language of sin as debt and the idea of a payment is found in the OT and NT, but not so much in relation to Jesus's death. But that God "condemned" sin in the flesh is clearly penal/punitive and Jesus become a "acursed" for us, in our stead, is also punitive and substitutionary.
You can explain the reason why God had to become incarnate in human form by the fact by doing so, He could fight directly against temptations originating from hell, which were the sins and transgressions of the whole world as Jesus fought against all of hell in this manner until He conquered it. The cross was simply His last temptation before His body was made completely Divine. That by fighting temptations, and glorifying Himself He saved humanity, He declares in John 17:19, afterwards He works the same in repentance in us. PSA runs into several logical issues as well as it goes counter to passages like Ex. 23:7 and Ezek. 18 in the OT, and I am telling Jews that they do not have to reject Christianity because of this. PSA lessens the need for repentance, and encourages people to believe they can convert once and then do nothing else. There is a whole branch of Christianity, the Orthodox church, which does not follow this kind of theory. The Christus Victor view is more logical than PSA and can explain all the verses you quote.
Excellent, Mike! Thanks for this. Have you read Crisp yet? He has some very keen insights. See my https://inchristus.com/2020/02/27/oliver-crisp-on-approaching-the-atonement/
This has to be the best thing I've ever read on PSA... thank you.
James, my pleasure!
That was very informative.
agreed, the correct atonement theory is all of them at once since they are all in scripture and don't contradict each other. PSA isn't the only atonement theory that has problems if you don't understand the trinity btw. I think moral influence theory also deflates without a trinity. A God who sits there on a priveledged throne wondering why we can't get our act together and sends their child to be tortured and die so we can admire his good example and do the same is a very different God to one that takes off their privelege, does good at great personal cost even to death and even has to learn what it is like to have to depend on God and trust Him.
This is brilliant!
Any thoughts on reconciling the episode in the Garden of Gethsamene with the claim that Jesus went willingly to the cross?
I agree that the gospels generally portray him as resolute, but the garden seems like a natural challenge.
Thanks for this Mike! I'm curious whether you see PSA in the church fathers, or just SA?
PSA doesn't make sense to me, regardless of how Paul describes it. How does Jesus die "in our place," if we still die? And death only lasted for two days - the sacrifice was reversed almost immediately. And other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering, so Jesus didn't drink it for them. Further, God punishes sin of his chosen people (Moses, David) AND nation (Israel) for sin - is there any text that says God will punish Jesus INSTEAD of them later on? And NT verses also suggest that we will be repaid for our deeds, both good and bad - not a substitute.
Given your understanding, does God ever 'punish' a Christian's sinful behaviour, ie after conversion?
Just look at David and others in the OT who were punished directly for their sins.
How does that allign with the view that Jesus took our punishment for sin upon himself on the cross?
It makes me question the notion that Jesus took our punishment on the cross in the first place. What did Jesus experience that we get to avoid? Why did Jesus suggest that other disciples would also "drink the cup" of suffering? I see his death more as representative than a substitution.
Although I think there are different aspects to Jesus' death, it is difficult to deny the substitutionary atonement teaching of the NT. Scholars such as Simon Gathercole present a strong case. Perhaps 'punishment' is the wrong word to use, but rather 'wrath'. Wrath is God's just consequences on sin. If you are forgiven, you wont face such wrath as Jesus has already experienced it.
Nuance. Definitely. Just leave out the punishment. Consequences if you like but there’s no word for punishment in the Bible particularly where the author is God. Humans punish. God takes on the consequences. I’ll put my money on Job’s final refusal to be the referee.
The trinitarian requirement makes Jesus complicit in his own offering (John 10.18) in the same way that Abraham and Isaac went up the hill 'together' (Gen 22). Without the willingness of the Son, some would be somewhat right to condemn the child abuse.
This was really helpful Michael. I never could understand the "child abuse"stance. It's as if the Trinty didn't exist!
Mike, thanks for this post. its been useful in kickstarting some thinking for something I have to write in the new year. Cheers.
My pleasure.
Why am I just now discovering this sub stack? This is the kind of nuance I’m looking for in these discussions. Thank you!
First, as a 61-year-old with a family history of prostate cancer, I do a double-take every time I see "PSA" in this context.
To the point, I was not aware PSA theology had become emphasized to that extent. At the same time, for whatever reason, it is the only Atonement theology I ever hear taught. Other views are not derided, they are ignored.
Hi Norrin, PSA shouldn't be ignored, but it should be placed and preached among its siblings.