In my last blog post entitled
“God’s View of Sin,” a commenter took exception with my view endorsing a
penal-substitutionary model of the atonement. His claim is very clear and very
basic: “that no component of PST exists in any form, kerygmatic or written,
until the reformation is a good indication that no one even conceived of it
until then.” Now, it seems to me that this statement is filled with
numerous problems. First, since the term kerygmatic applies to “preaching” it
seems that no one can know if PST was preached for the first thousand years of
the church because we do not have a record of everything that was preached
during that period. The statement on its face is an extreme exaggeration and
the commenter turned critic should have avoided it. Second, that we have no
written record of anyone ever espousing any component of PST is, on the face of
it, simply mistaken. The basic objective of this blog post is to demonstrate
that there were components and more, of the penal-substitutionary model of the
atonement embraced by those in the ancient church and that this can be traced
throughout the history of the church until it comes into its own in the works
of Anselm is not a difficult task.
Now, my critic has set his own bar
and that bar is indeed a high one. Because my critic has set a high bar for
himself, all that I must do in order to show that he is wrong is demonstrate
that just one component of PST was indeed present in the history of the church
prior to 1,000. I do not have to show that PST was fully framed out in some
confessional form prior to 1,000. Additionally, there is a logical problem with
my critic’s argument. Whether or not there is a written argument for PST is not
a good enough reason to conclude that no one had ever conceived of it until
Anselm. For there are many things that could be argued that would require
principles deduced from the belief that PST is biblical doctrine. Finding
principles that would require the soundness of PST would be good evidence that,
even though there were no direct writings about the doctrine, PST was received
by certain theologians making such arguments upon said principles. Even though
my critic has issued a proposition that is filled with numerous logical
fallacies, it is the lack of historical facts that is the most glaring. And so,
it is the historical fact that I shall address for the remainder of this post.
My goal is to provide historical proof that the PST was not new to Anselm, but
that it has its roots in early Christianity, in fact, in Scripture itself.
It would be remiss for me not to
provide a definition of what I mean when I say penal-substitutionary atonement.
Wayne Grudem is helpful when he says that Christ’s death was penal in that he
bore a penalty when he died. And, Christ’s death was a substitute in that he
was a substitute for us when he died. [Grudem, Systematic Theology, 579] One of
the issues with which we must grapple where the atonement is concerned is the
its multifaceted nature. Gregg Allison identifies several facts: expiation,
propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, Christ the Victor, example, and
exchange or imputation. Because of this fact alone, the opportunity to focus on
these various aspects of the atonement could create the false idea that other
facets were not as important. This is a nuance of the doctrine that must be
kept in view as one studies its history.
Clement of Rome wrote, “In love has
the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ
our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and
His soul for our souls.” (1 Clement 49) Clearly the idea of substitution is
present in the phrases, “his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls.”
The Epistle of Mathetes to
Diognetus also expresses a substitutionary view, “He Himself took on Him the
burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One
for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the
unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for
them that are mortal…By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and
ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God?” This work was
written in the late 2nd century.
Justin clearly thought in a
penal-substitutionary way in his dialogue with Trypho, “The Father of all wished His Christ for the whole
human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had
been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up…His Father wished Him to
suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed.” This
letter was also written in the second century.
Irenaeus, having been the first to formulate the
recapitulation theory, expressed a substitutionary view of the atonement; “For
as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin
soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was it necessary that,
by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should
be justified and receive salvation.”
Athanasius, living in the 4th century
expressed a substitutionary view: For when ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us’ and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He became to
us salvation, and became life, and became propitiation; then His economy in our
behalf became much better than the Angels, and He became the Way and became the
Resurrection.” And then again, he wrote, “He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His
Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free
of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than
death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the
resurrection of all.”
Ignatius clearly believed
that Jesus died on behalf of sinners, “Now, He suffered all these things for
our sakes, that we might be saved.”
The Epistle of Barnabas
contains similar language, “For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His
flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins,
which is effected by His blood of sprinkling…He also Himself was to offer in
sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit, in order that the type
established in Isaac when he was offered upon the altar might be fully
accomplished.”
It is challenging to gain more
clarity on this question than is added by reading the early church historian
Eusebius, “Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became
a curse on our behalf.” And again, “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but
was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which
we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the
forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to
Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us,
and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.” And
finally, “But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in
the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His
own from His love and benevolence towards us.” It seems this statement alone
would provide the hammer, the nail, and the coffin by which we could reject and
dispense with the view that there was no hint of PST in the first 1,000 years
of the church. Surely, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against such
claims.
I rest my case.
What is even more devastating
for the anti-PST view than the historical evidence in church history is a
careful exegesis of the text of Scripture. Nothing more is needed than
Scripture itself to offer a sound and thorough refutation of any view opposing
a Penal-Substitutionary Atonement.
No comments:
Post a Comment