Tag: Atonement

I’ve been reflecting on the Prodigal Son story recently. It’s an amazing parable that seems to encapsulate Jesus’ message of good news—the Gospel.

Part of my reflection has focused on how this relates to—and contrasts sharply with—one of the theories I once held about the atonement: Penal Substitution. I’ve spoken and written about this before, but not directly compared its logic with that of the Prodigal parable.

The Definition

Let’s begin with a definition. Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which gained prominence during the Reformation, holds that God’s justice required Jesus’ death so that He could forgive people’s sins.

God loves us, yet He is angry at our sin. Because He is holy, forgiveness requires His justice to be satisfied. Therefore, out of love, He punished His Son in our place. Jesus’ death appeased God’s wrath. Accept this, and you are free from it; reject it, and you face God’s anger. In summary, God killed Jesus for our benefit.

The Change

I once believed—and taught—this theory, convinced Jesus’ death satisfied God’s wrath. A few years ago, that belief was challenged, and I began to notice its flaws.

One challenge was the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Tax collectors and sinners gathered to hear Jesus, while Pharisees and teachers of the law complained, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” In that culture, sharing a meal signified full acceptance.

In response to their criticism, Jesus told three parables about loss: the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son. Each story is intended to defend Jesus’ associations with these people and to defend the people themselves.

The Prodigal

Jesus told of a man with two sons. The younger son asked for his inheritance early, then left for a distant country, where he squandered everything in reckless living. After a famine struck, he grew desperate and took a job feeding pigs.

Realising his condition, he returned home to ask to be made a servant, believing he was no longer worthy to be a son. But the father felt differently. As he was still far away, his father saw him, ran to him, and embraced and kissed him.

The son confessed his sin, but the father ordered his servants to bring the best robe, a ring, and sandals, and to prepare a feast. “This son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

The Prodigal Revised

I love this story because it captures God’s heart and Jesus’ gospel message—seeking and saving the lost. But if we reimagined the parable through the lens of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, everything would change upon the son’s return:

Coming to his senses, he decided to return home and ask his father to make him a servant, saying he was no longer worthy to be called his son. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and ran to him. The father was about to embrace and kiss the young man, but then remembered how angry he was with his son for wasting his inheritance—never mind the drunken parties and sex outside marriage.

“Wait,” said the father. “I want to forgive you, but I need to deal with my anger first. Now, who can I direct my anger at?” The father thought about it and finally settled on his firstborn son. He ordered his servants to bring his other son, then to whip, beat, mock, and crucify him.

Once his son was dead, the father said, “That’s better. My sense of justice is fully satisfied. Now, my dear boy, here are the best robe, a ring, and sandals. Let’s prepare a feast to celebrate. Welcome home.”

The Problem

Somehow, I don’t think this version of the story would resonate as strongly as the original—yet that’s the point. We know no loving parent would ever act this way, so why do we ascribe this behaviour to God?

In his sermon on the Mount, Jesus acknowledged the goodness of earthly parents but said our Father in heaven is far better. I’m a good dad, and I love my kids. I would never punish one of my daughters for her sister’s wrongdoing. That’s not justice; that’s ridiculous.

The Point

The point is this: love drives the message of the cross, in direct contrast to the wrath-driven logic of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. Suggesting that God’s wrath was satisfied by his son’s death diminishes both God’s loving nature and Christ’s sacrifice, unlike the father’s loving welcome in the parable.

To clarify, I affirm Substitutionary Atonement, but not in a penal sense. Paul writes: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, that we might become God’s righteousness. Paul uses accounting language—like exchanging currency. If you’ve travelled, you’ll know the experience of visiting a money exchange to swap your dollars for local cash.

Because of the Cross, our sin has been exchanged for God’s righteousness. That’s an amazing trade. Our sin is placed on Jesus; his righteousness is placed on us, and it’s all rooted in divine love, not anger.

And that remains true today. God is not angry with you; he loves you, and nothing can separate you from his love. This is the heart of the good news: you are deeply and unconditionally loved. Let that truth shape your journey today and every day.

 

Some time ago, I taught a series at Bayside Church called Cross Examined, which explored what the cross signifies, what it achieved, and how it has shaped our daily lives centuries after the event. The cross is at the heart of the Christian faith. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, our faith is meaningless.

Much of the New Testament was written to explain the reasons for the cross, and there is not just one objective behind the cross. The problem arises when we try to oversimplify the cross of Jesus and elevate one truth above others. Oversimplified statements then appear, claiming, “THIS is why Jesus died.”

Because of this tendency, different theories about the cross have emerged. Many hold some truth; some are incomplete, while others are simply incorrect. Let’s review these atonement theories one by one.

Penal Substitution Theory

The first sermon in the Cross-Examined series was titled “Did God Kill Jesus?” The message tackled this atonement theory, which states that God’s justice required Jesus’s death so he could forgive people’s sins. It became popular during the Reformation and went something like this:

God loves you, but He is also angry with you because of your sin. Since God is just, He cannot simply forgive you. His justice must be satisfied. Therefore, because He loves you, He punished His Son instead of you. Jesus’ death on the cross appeased God’s wrath. You no longer need to bear God’s wrath if you believe this. If you reject it, you must face the punishment of God’s anger both now and forever. In summary, God killed Jesus for your benefit.

This theory makes God somehow less than God. God loves you and wants to save you, but he can’t until his justice is satisfied. See the problem? It risks making justice greater than God. Justice is in charge here, and God becomes its servant.

Recapitulation Theory

Greek bishop Irenaeus proposed the Recapitulation theory in the second century. To recapitulate means “to go over the same ground again, to repeat or reiterate.” The theory suggests that Jesus went over the same ground as Adam but did so in perfect obedience. The Recapitulation Theory is grounded in scripture, especially in Paul’s letters (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; Romans 5:13-19).

The problem arises when this concept is pressed too far by saying that Jesus identified in every way with the first Adam, including experiencing sin. The Scriptures are emphatic that Jesus never sinned (1 Peter 2:22), even when experiencing temptation (Hebrews 4:15).

Satisfaction Theory

During the Middle Ages, Anselm, an Italian Benedictine monk and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109, introduced the Satisfaction Theory of atonement. The theory is based on the feudal system of Anselm’s time. According to the Britannica encyclopedia, “In feudal society, an offender was required to make recompense, or satisfaction, to the one offended according to that person’s status. Thus, a crime against a king would require more satisfaction than a crime against a baron or a serf.” A crime (sin) against the eternal God calls for the ultimate satisfaction of eternal death. However, Jesus fulfilled that requirement on the cross.

The satisfaction theory, a core part of Roman Catholic theology, largely overlooks Jesus’ actual substitution for sinners: his death on their behalf.

Moral Influence Theory

Another medieval theory was put forward by the French philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard in response to Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Abelard rejected the idea of God as offended, harsh, and judgmental, and instead emphasised God’s love. According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration that can change the hearts and minds of sinners, turning them back to God.

I agree with Abelard that the most crucial reason Jesus died was to demonstrate God’s extravagant love. But I don’t think that’s the only reason for the cross.

Example Theory

The Example Theory was promoted by Faustus Socinus, an Italian theologian, during the 16th-century Reformation. This theory (also known as the Moral or Martyr Theory) claims that the cross was an act of obedience meant to inspire people to regret their sins and emulate Christ. The theory is popular among universalists, who often have to perform theological gymnastics to interpret much of the New Testament in support of this idea.

Governmental Theory

Dutch lawyer and philosopher Hugo Grotius popularised this view in the 16th century in response to Socinus’s example theory. Grotius taught “that Christ upheld the principle of Government in God’s law by making a token payment for sin through His death.”

The Governmental Theory holds that Christ’s suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve. Still, it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. The cross allows God to forgive sin. And this is problematic because any theory of atonement that makes God subservient to something else – his wrath or justice – should be rejected.

God is no longer sovereign if he can’t forgive people without the cross. His wrath or justice becomes supreme.

Ransom to Satan Theory

First proposed by Origen in the early third century, this view suggests that people are captive to Satan, like prisoners of war (cf. 1 John 5:19). Origen believed that at the cross, a ransom was paid, not to God, but to Satan, based on verses like Matthew 20:28, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Cf. 1 Tim 2:6; Heb. 9:15).