The Roots of PSA- its Origin is not from Scripture.
Anselm of Canterbury proposed a substitutionary atonement model, albeit not a fully developed theory. According to Anselm’s
Cur Deus Homo, sin is not doing God’s will, which then “steals” His honor. As humans we are thus in debt to God and we owe him back the honor we stole by sinning. This honor must be appeased. For Anselm, “because God is infinite, any wound to his honor caused by the sins of Man must also be infinite, and the only way infinite satisfaction for these sins can be granted on behalf of man is by the voluntary death of Jesus, who is both God and Man.”
“If God is not paid the honor due Him, He is dishonored, having His honor taken from him. God’s honor is stolen by through sin. However, as long as he does not repay what he has stolen, he remains guilty. But it is not enough for him merely to repay what has been stolen; rather, because of the wrong which has been inflicted, he ought to repay more than he has stolen. For example, if someone who injures another’s health restores it, his doing so is insufficient payment unless he also gives some compensation for the painful wrong that was inflicted. Similarly, he who violates another’s honor does not sufficiently repay this honor unless, in proportion to the injury caused by the dishonoring, he makes some restitution which is acceptable to the one whom he dishonored. We must also note that when someone repays what he has stolen, he ought to return that which could not be exacted from him had he not stolen what belonged to another. Accordingly, then, everyone who sins is obliged to repay to God the honor which he has stolen. This [repayment of stolen honor] constitutes the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to make to God… To forgive sin in this manner is identical with not punishing it. Now, in the absence of satisfaction, to order sin rightly is only to punish it; therefore, if sin is not punished, something disordered is forgiven… Therefore, it is not fitting that God should forgive sin that goes thus unpunished.” (Cur Deus Homo Chapter 11-12).
Punishment is a key concept to Anselm, but why? Anselm is often criticized for deriving his doctrine of salvation from Germanic tribal law. Anselm’s idea of satisfaction draws from the idea that in Germanic clans, atonement for grievances must be made. Within their framework it is possible for one person to stand in for another. So, in his mind, Anselm sees the need for someone to be punished for sin and that makes up his framework of Christ’s death. It’s important to note that in Anselm, there isn’t the concept that the Father punished Christ, it wasn’t the suffering of the divine wrath, but that God was satisfied by Christ’s punishment. The Father doesn’t punish Christ, and Christ bears no punishment. So we see in the 11th century a substitutionary atonement but not penal substitutionary atonement.
Just to point out, that’s over 1,000 years after Christ before we see the roots of PSA.
The Reformers
The Reformers, as we know, claimed they were recovering the truth of the Gospel to align their doctrine with the New Testament and the earliest Christians. Believing the Middle Ages had corrupted Christianity, the Reformers looked to redefine many of the doctrines of the Church. Luther goes so far as to say that Christ becomes the greatest and only sinner on earth while on the cross. Luther adopted parts of Anselm’s ideas but with more of a dichotomy or conflict between the wrath of God and the love of God.
We see a very real development of penal substitutionary atonement theory in John Calvin. Calvin took Anselm’s groundwork and expanded in an even more legalistic way. He applied his understanding of criminal law to the equation - man is a criminal and must be punished by God, who is angered by sin. The Son of God is sent to earth to bear the immense wrath of the God of all for us so that God may then be merciful. Calvin says things like “God, then, must of necessity look upon us in the person of His own Son, or else he is bound to hate us and abhor us,” “For since by nature we are unclean, and utterly rejected and cursed by God,” and talks about the “hatred between him and us.” These concepts are foreign to us in the East and yet critical to penal substitutionary atonement. The Early Church had no concept of God imputing the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bearing the punishment we deserve. Christ making payment for our sins, which satisfies the wrath and the righteousness of God so that He could forgive sinners without compromising his holiness, is a late addition to Christian through.
One of the most well-known verses in the New Testament to my faith group growing up was Romans 3:23-26. It’s part of the “Road to Romans” evangelism track. It’s interesting to read it while contemplating penal atonement - nowhere does it say Christ is punished in our place (we’ll tackle the word “propitiation” in just a minute). The same is true for the verses cited in favor of penal substitution - nowhere do they say Christ was a substitution, that Christ was punished by the Father, or that God’s wrath had to be sated by Christ.
Because of the fall, our ability to remain in union with God was damaged.
Now I want to be clear here - I have not been discussing atonement in general, but the specific doctrine of penal atonement substitution - the idea that the Father unleashed His wrath on Christ on the cross to satisfy His need for blood for forgiveness. God needed someone his equal in rank to satisfy the breaking of the law in order for justice to be fulfilled. The Father pours out His wrath on Christ in order to satisfy the offenses against His Law since Adam. It is this that I find preposterous, not the idea that Christ does atone for us. I have to ask: why would a good, loving God have to take out His wrath on His creation?
https://liveorthodoxy.com/en/2020/0...s-a-poor-substitution-for-biblical-atonement/
What About Isaiah 53?
Isaiah 53 is a paramount prophecy to defenders of penal substitutionary theory, yet it is often taken out of context. Bold claim, I know, but hear me out. No where in Isaiah does it say that the Father is punishing Christ. Actually, verse 4 says that despite the fact he bears our griefs and sorrows “yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” Let’s reword that - humanity’s perception is that He is afflicted by God, not that God has smitten Him. Another key passage is verse 5 which tells us “by His stripes we are healed,” not “by His stripes the Father is appeased.” Let’s look at a literal translation from the Septuagint:
“The one our sins bore and on account of us he was grieved. And we considered him to be a misery, and for calamity by God, and for ill-treatment. But he was wounded because of our sins and was made infirm on account of our lawless deeds.” One should read Isaiah as a prophecy of Christ’s healing work, viewing Christ’s work as more encompassing than the narrow focus PSA allocates it to.
So What’s the Alternative?
The Greek word translated to “atonement” in the Bible is “
hilasterion“ (ιλαστηριον). In Romans 3:23-25 we read “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (ιλαστηριον) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness because, in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins.”
The word here is a Greek word, so a literal translation can be tricky. One translation is the word propitiation, which implies an act of appeasing or making God happy to either gain favor or avoid retribution.
As
Eric Hyde argues, “If one chooses to interpret
hilasterion as propitiation (literally: “to make favorable,” with the implication of placating or appeasing the deity), then the entire Western notion of substitutionary atonement fits well.” But, if one uses the word expiation, which implies a cleansing and removal of sin, this fits less into the penal substitutionary atonement model. This turns the death and resurrection of Christ around - no longer is Christ trying to appease an angry God the Father who has wrath that must be satisfied,
instead Christ is lovingly redeeming and restoring humanity.
Let’s also consider that
hilasterion is used in the Septuagint to mean the
“mercy seat” or “thing that atones.” It also appears again in
Hebrews 9:5 as the mercy seat. Given that context to
hilasterion, it makes more sense to that Christ’s self-sacrifice was an act for the removal of our sins instead of an act to appease or pacify an angry Father, so He can forgive.
We know that death entered the world through sin and is something that every living thing on earth is subject to. In Christ’s Incarnation, He reunited God and man in a way that only the Eternal Logos, being fully God and taking on humanity. Through His death, Christ defeated our enemy, death, and restored the human race (2 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 15:55-57). We share in Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:8-14; 7:6) and, through Christ’s atonement we’ve been made clean and freed from sin (Ephesians 1:7; John 1:7), reuniting us to God and making us partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
Because of sins, we were held captive; the righteous dead were filing into hades. Christ came to set them free. Jesus had to go into the realm of death - that meant becoming a human, entering the world through a woman, living an earthly life, and then allowing himself to be killed. We see him on the cross, not like he’s writhing in agony, but looking more like a hero. He maintains a heroic status in Orthodoxy; we look upon him as our Redeemer, Savior, Deliverer, who, with His boldness, and his power, and his compassion, suffered, and died, and went into hades in order to set us free. The image of the resurrection looks different than European art. In our iconography, Christ is standing on the broken gates of hell, lifting Adam and Eve out of hades.
Hebrews 2:14-15 tells us “
that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the Devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.“
Christ’s work is redemptive. Christ’s sacrifice was restorative. Christ brings God to man, as only one who is God and man can, bridging the gap, conquering death, and restoring us to life. This is the good news in the Scriptures. This is what has been taught by the Church since Pentecost.
Division of the Trinity
This becomes problematic in the light of the Trinity when we look at Christ on the cross. The Father pours out his wrath on the Son. The Father has wrath, and for his need for justice, so He must punish. The Son, on the cross, asks for forgiveness, making a conflict in the divine will - punishment versus forgiveness. Taking it to the furthest logical conclusion puts the Son and the Father at odds, creating a divide within the indivisible Trinity. It also calls to question Christ’s place in the Godhead. Shouldn’t Christ’s holiness also be offended? Why would the Father need appeasement and not Christ or the Holy Spirit?
And if God the Father is truly punishing Christ, that is also sowing very real division within the Trinity. If the Father inflicts torture on the Son, how can the perfect love and unity of the Trinity survive?
hope this helps !!!
A goose egg
