I don’t really remember how I related to this idea as a child. In one sense, I “knew” it. I was taught it, and I was pretty good at learning the things that I was taught. So, I knew it. But I don’t remember whether it made any sense to me at the time or not.

It doesn’t now. Hasn’t for a long time. As with most doctines about “God’s Will,” there is room for debate on whether this one is “Biblical” or not. (James McGrath says it is not, while Ken Pulliam thinks that, on balance, it is). Why is that important? Well, for some, whether it is “Biblical” or not determines whether it is “God’s Will” or not. For some, whether PST (assuming it is “the Biblical view”) is morally defensible or not determines whether Biblical fundamentalism is morally defensible. For others, it’s just an interesting question.

My view is that this is like any other doctrine. PST is both Biblical and un-Biblical, depending on which texts you focus on.

Furthermore, my view is that PST is non-sensical and morally indefensible.

Ken Pulliam, whose individual post is linke above on the issue of whether PST is “Biblical”, has written no less than fifty three detailed posts expositing his view that PST is morally indefensible. He argues against numerous modern and historical theologians who attempt to defend PST. To argue this forcefully against so many well-credentialed theologians, Ken Pulliam must be extremely clever, or he must be correct in his view. I am quite convinced that it is the latter (though I don’t doubt that he is clever). The articles he has archived under the PST category are spread over several pages (navigation is at the bottom), here. I believe this archive is likely among the most comprehensive (and persuasive) set of arguments against PST in existence. If you are interested in the Penal Substitution Theory, you could do worse than to spend a few days reading through it.

I offer the failings of the Penal Substitution Theory of atonement as an indictment of fundamentalism and as an invitation to consider healthier modes of thought about how humans can relate to what they hold sacred.

I have deliberately avoided defining PST. It is often difficult to distinguish from its cousin, “Satisfaction”, and its parent general “Substitution”. Virtually every criticism of PST applies to the broader spectrum of “punishment” and “substitution” theories.

An exception is the “ritual” subset of satisfaction/substitution models. These effectively take the ancient notion of sacrifice, strip them of the context (God’s wrath mollified by an obsequious gift), and leave only the ritual itself as the mode by which God is satisfied. (It is not always the case that the context is removed – sometimes the ancient concept of sacrifice is kept relatively intact). While most adherents of a satisfaction/substitution theory of punishment do not accept the “ritual” view, they sometimes will use its language, even in defense of the views they do espouse (citing, for instance, the necessity that Jesus be “perfect” in order for the sacrifice to be adequate).

Other orthodox or neo-orthodox ideas of atonement often come into the mix during discussions of atonement. Especially prevalent is the participation theory, that all who identify with Jesus participated mystically in his death and restoration, and have therefore have already been punished and restored. Arguments against PST have little force against the participatory model – one which (as McGrath points out is also Biblical). This model does less violence to ideals of justice and mercy but I personally still find it unsatisfying.

It seems odd to mention the Classic theory of atonement so late in a list, but it simply lacks clout these days. It often comes up, but rarely from anyone who accepts its primary efficacy. Under the Classic model, Jesus’ death and resurrection defeated Satan and Evil once and for all. As a theory unto itself, it has a feel of the mystical – this willing death of God, and his subsequent resurrection – for the very reason of their having happened – was the vehicle of atonement. They mystically about the defeat of Satan, evil, and death, and therefore wrought atonement. As a footstool to substitutionary theories, this view is merely a metaphor – it is because Jesus was punished as a substitute for us that Satan, evil, and death were robbed of their power. This is one area where some conservatives agree with some liberals – in symbologizing the Classic theory (though liberals are apt to do it sans the substitutionary doctrine).

Under the moral-influence model (which is rarely invoked by conservatives as a model of primary efficacy), upon understanding the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice, people are moved to relinquish their sinful nature in favor of a Godly one. This, rather than a vicarious punishment, brings about atonement.

Under other Christian theories of atonement, the crucifixion is not directly responsible for the atonement at all. These are generally the most liberal theories, and include some Christian Humanist viewpoints. The most prevalent of these (and the only one I will mention) is that it is Jesus’ message that brings salvation. Under this view, crucifixion was the price Jesus had to pay for bringing his salvific message to humanity. I certainly understand the appeal of this view to liberals and to humanists. There are among the teachings imputed to Jesus some edifying lessons. And, the notion that Jesus would preach the message boldly even knowing it would mean his death is an edifying lesson in selflessness.

There was a stage during which I considered adopting a Christian-humanist viewpoint centered around the “saving message” and this view of atonement. The reason I didn’t is the same reason I don’t accept most other Christian doctrines – I don’t believe it is true. It is an admirable fiction, but a fiction none-the-less. First, I don’t especially believe that Jesus had any special foreknowledge of his death. It’s possible that he knew he was painting himself into a corner that would end in death – even crucifixion. But it’s just as likely that he was teaching what he thought was right without much appreciation for the danger in which it may have placed him. Second, I don’t think that it was his strong ethical teachings that got him crucified. I think it was his more likely his opposition to the practices current in the administration of the Jerusalem temple that did him in. Third, it’s hard to say what Jesus’ teachings really were. They likely didn’t include everything attributed to him in the New Testament. They likely did include things we don’t get to read about in the New Testament. Fourth, even among those attributed to him in the New Testament, only a few were especially strong ethical messages. Fifth, of those attributed to him which were strong ethical messages, most echoed ethical teachings already present in the Hebrew scriptures or elucidated by other teachers of his era – teachings which didn’t get anybody crucified. A person could do worse than to adopt the salvific message model of redemption and a humanistic Christianity, but it isn’t for me.

*These days more atonement-related ink is spilled on another controversy than on the general model of atonement. Unfortunate in my view, since the model itself needs some serious revision if it is to be held to a high standard of sense and sensibility. But I don’t get to decide what folks argue about, and the bigger discussion is over whether our sins were *infused* into Christ such that he somehow “became” guilty, or they were merely *imputed* to him, such that God was willing to act as though he were guilty of them. While Pulliam doesn’t often employ the language of imputation and infusion in his posts, he deals with both possibilities exhaustively.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Religion
Post tags: Religion

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Mark Goodacre is an associate professor in the department of Religion at Duke Univesity. His NT Pod is delivered with a British accent and a style that keeps (me, at least) awake and interested. He is very interested in the synoptic problem and ably defends the Farrer Hypothesis against the more commonly accepted two-source hypothesis (which argues for a Q source shared by Matthew and Luke, but not Mark). In fact, he argues it so ably, that I have become very sympathetic to this view. I still have questions, and I’m sure there are reasons why consensus still favors the two-source hypothesis, but Goodacre is exactly the kind of contrarian that keeps it interesting and fun. Goodacre also runs NT Blog, which I follow on Google Reader.

Philip Harland is an associate professor at York University in Ontario, Canada, teaching courses on early Christianity. He writes a blog called Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, and covers a range of topics that include and help to contextualize early Christianity. His podcast is housed along with the blog. I always look forward to new material from him. His Canuck accent is at least as much fun as Goodacre’s British one, especially when it hits you by surprise with an “oat” or “aboat” in the middle of a stream of regular old English.

I’m in the market for more podcasts with a similar focus. If you know a good one, let me know, too! And, if you have a mobile listening device, subscribe to these two and get ready to get a good education!

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Blogging/Site
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

This debate was among those rare exceptions. When one of those comes along, you don’t talk about who won or lost the debate, as much as what you learned from it. Unfortunately, Bart Ehrman is unskilled at oral debate and sounded uncomfortable and strident. In addition, he did not always argue as effectively as he could have. So, if we have to speak of a winner, it is the conservative, Craig Evans. But both were interesting, and both made a number of valid points. I’ll recap a couple. But right now, it’s time to watch the video. It’s just shy of an hour and a half, so watch it when you have some time.

First, some points about Evans. I really admired his closing statement which contrasted the humility of evangelical Christianity with the false confidence of fundamentalism. I believe that even fundamentalists hearing him defend conservative Christianity would appreciate his viewpoint (and might, without giving up the doctrines of hard inerrancy and other unfortunate aspects of fundamentalism, think of themselves as being closer kin with his view than with the view they have historically espoused).

Second, while his presentation on such issues as whether the gospels “contain” eye-witness testimony, whether we have sufficiently well-attested witnesses to the originals, where we can have a good deal of confidence about concerning the historical core of the gospels, and how the gospels can be and are used by historians and archaeologists, was relatively partisan, it was also essentially correct. In the case of how historians and archaeologists use the gospels, it was more correct than Ehrman’s contribution.

Third, for whatever reason, he left a number of points very conspicuously unanswered.

Fourth, he was in very questionable territory on a couple of items.

For his part, Ehrman was somewhat far afield in answering the question about how archaeologists might employ the gospels. He was not his usual professorial self (I’ve seen instructional videos in which his style is much more somber and reflective) – instead he did come across as strident and uncomfortable. In addition, apart from his answer on archaeology, his answers were essentially correct – but very partisan in presentation.

His strongest point – and one which did go unanswered – concerned the question of who Jesus said that he was. He is correct that John differs from the other gospels in that it portrays Jesus as being self-consciously Divine in terms of equality or near-equality with the Father. Before I go into more detail on this let me diverge for a moment.

Evans cites a short list of items that can be historically known about Jesus from the Gospels – including that he was known as a healer, that he was baptized by John, and that he preached the Rule or Kingdom of God, among other things. He also points out that he was received as a messiah-figure by (some, at least, among) his disciples and may have acknowledged such a designation himself. These are all important facts about Jesus that it would be foolish to discard lightly, and they attest to a certain amount of reliability of the gospels in terms of how they characterize Jesus life, and teachings. Ehrman probably agrees with most of those points, but treated them dismissively. As I said, his approach was partisan.

Significantly, this list of Evans correctly omits any notion that Jesus thought of himself as uniquely Divine. In fact, Evans would have been irresponsible to defend that notion as being anything like a historical certainty. Ehrman made the point that many evangelicals ask the question – is Jesus who he said he was? Ehrman, rightly in my view, made the point that these same evangelicals hold an unjustified assumption – that Jesus said he was God. In my view, he never believed that or thought it.

That isn’t to say that John invented the notion (or even held it in the same way modern Evangelicals do). Notions of the divinity of Jesus certainly predated John and showed up in the writings of Paul and even, obliquely, some of the synoptic gospels. John is simply the gospel that presents that notion least ambiguously and attributes it to Jesus himself. One of the most interesting fields of study I’ve recently run across is trying to understand in the context of first century Judaism what was meant by the notion of divinity, especially as it was applied to Jesus. If Evans had answered Ehrman’s challenge on the historical reliability of the notion that Jesus and his immediate followers conceived of him as co-equal with the Father, then the discussion would have inevitably become more technical and begun to explore some of those issues. I believe that Evans avoided that in part because he did not relish that discussion – knowing as he must that there is little support in the Bible or in the context of first century Judaism for the idea that Jesus was, thought he was, or was thought of as being “fully God”.

This is the biggest point of contention, I believe, between the liberal or secular student and the conservative one: the identity of Jesus. On this point, I think Ehrman’s position is stronger. The next biggest point of contention between the liberal or secular student and the conservative one is the nature of the Bible. On this point Evans does engage, and in some ways corrects Ehrman’s views which – presented from the partisan viewpoint of counter-apology – are a tad extreme. However, Ehrman is largely correct – there are good reasons to discount the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility. Evans, to the extent that he only corrects Ehrman’s occasional over-reach but does not answer his basic charges, seems to agree with Ehrman in spirit, even if he holds to a strong notion of Biblical reliability and considers it the authoritative word of God. He consistently defers the repeated question: does he finds in the Bible the same irreconcilable contradictions that others find. In short he does not base his “high” view of the scripture on the idea that there are no “errors” in the Bible, but rather on the idea that the Bible is generally reliable and tells a consistent and believable story.

Even when stated this way, I disagree with him. Yes, the New Testament is harmonious on certain matters central to Christian theology. Furthermore, there are no written testimonies to Christian views from the same early period that profoundly contradict the New Testament position on those matters (though there is ample evidence that such contradictory Christian views did exist in that early period – and there is reason to surmise and some limited evidence that in fact non-Christian views of Jesus from those in as good a position as Paul and the Evangelists to evaluate the stories was also at odds with the Christian narrative).

But even if we take the view on face value that the Bible is generally reliable concerning the life and teachings of Jesus, it is still quite a task to derive from that support for wide swaths of evangelical doctrine. As Ehrman pointed out, important doctrines (including the Trinity) are without Biblical foundation apart from layers of interpretation in light of doctrines unheard of at the time the New Testament was written. (Furthermore, taking into account the cultural context of New Testament writings, it might be said that the Bible is directly or indirectly at variance with, for instance, Trinitarianism as later conceived). This is one area where Evans may have overstated his case – in suggesting that issues which come up in textual variants are resolved by other, better-founded, texts – and including the Trinitarian formula of First John. He would be hard pressed to produce those texts and show how they are properly interpreted in light of the cultural context of their writing in support of the spurious formula of the Johannine comma. As Ehrman pointed out, a number of teachings historically (and currently, in many circles) held to be important and worth repeating and sermonizing over, are based on insecure variants. Not all are as clearly spurious as the Johannine comma, but quite a few are at least disputable. Taken together with ample evidence to doubt the absolute reliability of every statement in the New Testament, with good reason to read the Gospels as each expressing its own position, with an honest appreciation of the tension between their accounts, and mindfully of which are most representative of what the earliest followers of Jesus thought and believed about him, it follows that the weight of modern conservative theology, including doctrines about the Bible itself, is very insecure.

That said, I like Evans’ approach. While he still holds (unjustifiably in my view) to much of conservative theology and a traditionally high view of scripture, he divorces himself from fundamentalist absolutes both by leaving Ehrman’s strongest charges unanswered, and by – in his closing statement – positively pointing out the futility of an absolutist interpretation of the Bible. He acknowledges, rightly, that his views are contingent and debatable, and that while he holds to the authority of a traditional interpretation, that rejection of that tradition is also a valid and honest position. It is precisely this humility that separates the modern evangelical from the modern fundamentalist, and lends respectability to the conservative position.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Religion
Post tags: Bible

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

As with many attempts to defend the penal substitution theory, this one “skates around the issue” as Pulliam puts it. Rather than defending penal substitution, it proposes a new theory: one that could be humorously described as the “law of conversion of Glory”. In other words, under John Piper’s theory, Jesus’ death isn’t meant as punishment that was due to us and which is taken in our place. It is a way of restoring God’s glory, something which our dying eternal torment might otherwise have accomplished.

As Pulliam points out, this is a peculiar notion, and one that you would be hard pressed to find in the Bible. And it does require some strange thinking about what Glory is and how it can be “magnified”: issues which are implicit in Piper’s argument but which he doesn’t directly address.

On the positive side, Piper’s theory lacks the underpinning of retributive justice that normally underlies the theory of penal substitution. This is worth pointing out. When it comes right down to it, I think most believers in penal substitution balk at notions of retributive justice when forced to contemplate them seriously.

In fact, I think Piper’s argument – like many arguments in favor of penal substitution shows that most believers in it don’t really accept the justice of it, and don’t want to impute that kind of perverted justice to God. I think this is why their defenses of it are often crafted in terms that (pardon the pun) substitute some other theory in its place.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Religion
Post tags: Penal Substitution

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

In a recent discussion of tithing, I revisited a fact that never stood out starkly to me before: under Mosaic law only agricultural landowners were required to tithe. As tithing was, as far as I can tell from scripture, the only means of finance of the Levitical government (caveats about what Solomon or other later kings required of their subjects notwithstanding), then it seems to follow that only land-owning farmers paid taxes. There was no property tax on a home if one didn’t raise one’s own livestock on the land. There was no tax that I can find on income earned laboring on someone else’s farm.

At the same time, the Levitical tax was used primarily to support the priests, who were forbidden from owning land (and therefore producing their own wealth), and secondarily for feeding “the poor”.

So, under Levitical law, taxes were purely redistributive, and uniquely “socialist” in that they applied to those who “owned the means of production” so to speak, and used primarily for the benefit of those who had no ownership of same.

Of course this is pretty irrelevant. As I mentioned before similarities to modern “socialist” schemes are interesting but we shouldn’t try to interpret radically different ancient societies through the lens of modern ideologies. And likewise, we shouldn’t build our fiscal policies today – or try to live our lives today – on the basis of a reconstruction of an ancient society’s standards.

But it’s interesting.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Religion
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I had heard the interpretation several times before that, despite the praise for Abraham in the text, the fact was that Abraham FAILED the test, that God wanted Abraham to make the ethical choice and refuse the order to do evil. After all, in Nuremberg the world decided that obedience is not an ethical act and the individual has the ethical responsibility to disobey unethical orders – at least when they rise to a certain level.

But a reading of the story that I hadn’t heard several times before came from a sermon preached by a Reform rabbi, a great preacher and a real mensh, with whom my Unitarian Universalist congregation had a wonderful relationship. As he presented it, it is really a question of whom the reader of story should identify with.

- Do we identify with Abraham, who is either a dupe of a mischievous God or self-righteous, seeing himself as incapable of misunderstanding instructions handed down by a wholly Other deity?

- Do we identify with Isaac, the intended victim, and mourn our lot in life, mistreated, even by the one we should most be able to trust but who treated our life itself as a proving ground for himself rather than as our life?

- Or do we identify with the angel, the only other thinking character physically present in the story, who physically stops Abraham’s act of violence once he has begun to act, who orders Abraham not to harm the boy.

For my rabbi friend, this story is not a celebration of blind obedience to God but a call for us to act for social justice, preventing harm of the weaker members of society where possible and being a voice speaking out against harm that might be lessened or stopped in response to our voice drawing awareness to situations needing to be fixed or avoided.

The rabbi’s sermon was titled “Be the Angel.”

Scripture, like literature, may have a place in our lives… but sometimes you have to turn it on its ear to make it really work. The real “scripture” here, I believe, is the thinking of the Rabbi. I endorse his view wholeheartedly.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Religion
Post tags: Bible

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Politics has surpassed genuine textual ambiguities in translating the Bible for the most popular translation, the NIV. The committee in charge of updating that version is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook. As a result, the revision and replacement of the NIV will be influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts. As a result of these political influences, it becomes desirable to develop a conservative translation that can serve, at a minimum, as a bulwark against the liberal manipulation of meaning in future versions.

What I was surprised to learn was that Luke – yes that Luke – was a liberal – possibly higher-educated professor! That’s right… ok, maybe not. Maybe it was a liberal redactor:

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[6]

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

In fact, they’re right. I don’t know what academics say about the significance of it, but Luke 23:34 is missing from several important manuscripts. Interestingly, tradition attributes these same words to that flaming liberal Stephen upon the occasion of his martyrdom. It’s difficult to say whether these words were original to Luke (and later deleted from some copies) or whether they were inserted by later (liberal) copyists, possibly using the Stephen tradition as a source.

And now, it’s time for some silly:

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the “master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” But is “shrewdly”, which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.
The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is “resourceful”. The manager was praised for being “resourceful”, which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term “resourceful” in its entire translation of the Bible.

I helpfully added the link to the Strongs entry for “dishonest” – the word to describe the manager who acted “resourcefully”. Just because I felt that this would be a funny thing to do. Don’t you think that this parable really needs some conservatization? Cast Ken Lay in the role of the rich man and Arthur Anderson in the role of resourceful accountant, and hey presto! A tale fit for the red-blooded American reader! (Seriously – read the parable… That manager is VERY resourceful!)

Third Example – Socialism

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the “social justice” movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word “volunteer” is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word “comrade” is used three times, “laborer(s)” is used 13 times, “labored” 15 times, and “fellow” (as in “fellow worker”) is used 55 times.

You heard it right. Volunteering is for conservatives. Laboring is for namby-pamby white tower latte sipping socialists.

And there you have it. If God can’t be bothered to produce a suitably conservative Bible, then I guess it’s just up to the folks at the “Trustworthy Encyclopedia”. I fully expect that in this version, the Centurion’s ear bloody well stays cut off!

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Humor, R's
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Anyway, I don’t want to reinforce the misapprehension common in the 21st century American Bible belt that the Hebrew Bible and Jews in their understanding of it expected their Messiah to be (the son of) God himself. But the truth is that some messianic sects using Daniel, along with some extra-biblical writings, expected the Messiah(s) to be invested with Divine authority in a way that made the Messiah(s) Divine Agent(s). It might even be justifiable to say that these sects wouldn’t have been surprised or outraged at the notion of the Messiah(s) being given the Divine Name.

So, anyway – my friend was skeptical of my counter-claim that Jesus-as-God could have somehow fit within the Jewish monotheism of the period.

James McGrath (to whom I often link on related subjects) has recently published a book entitled “The Only True God” – which title comes from a statement in the Gospel of John about the correct designation of YHWH/the Father. It takes up the early Jewish/Christian ideation about God and the Divinity of Jesus before the divorce of Christianity from Judaism and the subsequent development of the Trinity doctrine. Information about that book is here, and suggests to me that McGrath is 1) on the right track – historically if not theologically, and 2) treating the subject with a measure of depth and subtlety worthy of respect. Unfortunately, I haven’t got to read the book yet… but I would like to, and would like to lend it to my friend when I’m done.

Also on my radar, and somewhat related to the “number” of God is Daniel McClellan’s post Decoupling YHWH and El, which endorses the view of Mark Smith in his book, “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism”. This view suggests that Jewish monotheism emerges from a Syro-Palestinian four-tiered Pantheon with El as a top-tiered “parental” diety, and YHWH as a second-tier “active” diety associated with storms. It further finds that YHWH was a national diety of the southern Kingdom of Judah while El was the principle deity of the northern Isra-el, and that the two came together when the two kingdoms were united. I’m having to presume a little bit here, but my understanding of this position is that the two were equated together during the Deuteronomic reform.

I’m not an expert by any stretch, but that all generally makes sense to me.

If this is the case, then the “number” of God seems to be following a cyclic pattern of contraction and expansion… ending when the 3rd-4th Century Christians locked their count in at three (with the modern exceptions of Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses, a good number of ancient exceptions now branded as heretical, and possibly a few others I’ve forgotten), and Jews – at least partly in reaction to Trinitarian Christianity – adopted a very strict monotheism that persists to this day.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Religion
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh