First edition, 2000
Recently a former student, Nathan Hunt, asked me how my thinking about the atonement differs from twenty-five years ago when the first edition of my book, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts was published. I loved the question and the reflection it prompted.
More Jesus, More Cross
First, I should acknowledge that significant change happened through the several-year process of writing the book. I started with a strong, but narrow, pastoral concern—the suffering caused by people having a distorted concept of God shaped by common understandings of the cross. Co-authoring the book with Joel Green led me to see other negative fruit of poor atonement theology. And, Joel pulled me beyond just critique. He also broadened my awareness of the work and significance of the cross. Soon after the book came out, in the middle of a praise song about the cross, I realized that I sang with deeper and broader gratitude for the cross than I had before. That has continued to grow since book came out in 2000. In 2008 I started writing on the board at the beginning of my Theological Understandings of Jesus course—MORE JESUS, MORE CROSS. Whereas before my focus and passion had been eradicating something problematic, my goal became to not just remove, but to add more.
Realizing Penal Substitution Theory’s Continuing Influence on Me
I had begun critiquing a version of penal substitution theory in 1988. Even so, a few years after the book came out, I realized how much it still shaped my thinking about the cross—not the content, but the form. The New Testament proclaims the saving significance of the cross, it does not explain the mechanics of how the cross saves. Penal substitution theory of atonement (PSA) proposes an explanation of the mechanics. The theory provides a neat and logical explanation. I felt pressure to come up with an alternative that was as equally logical, complete, and neat. In that sense PSA still influenced me. There were two significant problems to this. First, whereas theories, like PSA, close down with a strong period at the end. Images and metaphors, like those in the New Testament, open up to greater depths of meaning. Second, as C. S. Lewis so powerfully communicates through the stone table scene in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the saving work of the cross and resurrection are about “deeper magic.” If we borrow the legal logic (magic) of the world to explain the mechanics of the cross in a way we fully understand, we will fall short of the deeper magic of God’s work through the cross and resurrection. Stepping away from striving for a tightly logical and watertight explanation is a significant way I have changed since 2000. That contributed to another change.
More and Shorter Explanations and Images of Salvation Through the Cross
It troubled me that, even after I had co-authored a book on the atonement, I could not give a short coherent explanation to the question of how the cross and resurrection save us. (Underline “short”—I had written a chapter-length answer so long that Joel and the editor pulled it from the book.) The step described above created greater space for alternatives. Three other things led to me having a tool box full of images and explanations. First, one night, a few years after the book’s release, lying in bed, my wife asked me, “OK, if Jesus’ death on the cross does not provide for our salvation by appeasing God’s demand for punishment, please explain how does the cross save? Could you give me a brief answer?” Pressure was on! I obviously needed to say something short and coherent. Also, since I advocated for using multiple images of atonement, I felt pressure to not just give a single answer. I started talking and, to my relief and surprise, I quickly listed ten ways the cross saves and Lynn found it helpful. Grateful for her question, and what it led to, the next day I wrote down the list and later turned it into an article.
Second, I began looking for examples of people using images and stories, other than PSA, to proclaim the saving significance of the cross—in Sunday school classes, sermons, and conversations in coffee shops. I brought them together in a book, Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of Atonement. Third, in my Christology course I gave students an assignment to develop a contextual presentation of salvation through the cross. (Some of the best are at the bottom of this page of my website.) These two gave me a wealth of examples. Borrowing from others filled my tool box.
Jesus Life as Foundational Narrative
Stepping away from the demand for a tight logical explanation of the mechanics of how the cross provides salvation also contributed to me giving greater attention to the relation between Jesus’ life and the cross. PSA, rooted in the legal dynamics of a western courtroom, has little connection to Jesus’ life—what matters is that he did not sin. I sought to do the opposite, to look at the dynamics of Jesus’ life that provoked powers of the day to want to kill him. How might that inform our understanding of how the cross and resurrection provide salvation? Over the years I developed and refined what I called, “A Foundational Narrative of the Atonement: Framed by Covenant and Rooted in Jesus’ Life.” (Here in article form with diagrams.)
My work on this foundational narrative also resolved a tension I felt in 2000. I am a systematic theologian, and systematic theologians seek to bring things together in coherent unity. For instance, systematic theologians construct theories of atonement. If they critique PSA they offer an alternative theory. My co-author, Joel Green, is a New Testament scholar. He thinks the significance of the cross and resurrection cannot be captured in a single theory—as I said above theories close down, metaphors open up. Joel advocates for following the New Testament and using multiple images to proclaim the saving significance of the cross. Joel persuaded me. Yet, I still felt the pull for something to unify. I settled on a foundational narrative as a compromise. It offers a unifying foundation for multiple images yet it avoids the swamp of logical explanation of mechanics, and it does not limit as theories of atonement do.
Critical of Penal Substitution? It Depends . . .
Twenty-five years ago, if you asked me if I was critical of penal substitution I would have said “yes.” Now, before responding, I would ask, “what do you mean by penal substitution?” Two things led to that change. First, I encountered some who use the term “penal substitution” positively, yet I do not find their work problematic. (For examples, see chapter six in the second edition of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross.) Second, during the couple-year period when I, and the seminary, were under intense critique because of my atonement books, I saw the value of stating specifics of what I critique. When I said I was against penal substitution theory of atonement, people heard different things in those words. So instead, I began saying, “I do not believe that the Bible teaches that God needed to be appeased in order to forgive, or that God had to punish Jesus in order to be able to forgive and be in relationship with us. I critique presentations of the cross that communicate this.” If I had space to say a bit more, I would add. “I affirm that God is angered by sin and injustice and that God judges and punishes, but I understand God’s justice as fundamentally working to restore and rectify. I critique explanations of the cross that portray God being obligated to punish as payback or recompense. Also, I critique presenting any theory or image of atonement as the one explanation of atonement.”
Greater Care with Atonement Terminology
In a related way, I am more careful today in defining terms. Joel and I were clear, in our minds, and we thought in our book, that we affirmed substitutionary atonement but critiqued a particular type of substitutionary atonement—PSA. Yet, we learned that for many people terms like, “penal substitution,” “atonement,” “substitutionary atonement”, even “cross,” all meant the same thing. In the second edition we wrote more explicitly about distinctions between these terms.
Second Edition, 2011
Preparing the Soil—Adding Compost
In the first edition of our book Joel gave strong biblical arguments for alternative atonement theology and I mirrored that in class. Yet, I found that even people who were critical of PSA and wanted to step away from it, still saw it in the Bible. In 2007 I made a shift in my Jesus course—what I called soil preparation. I metaphorically “added compost”—for example, looking at the meaning of “redemption,” of sacrifices in Leviticus, and God’s judgment. The most significant soil amendment came from seeing how the meaning of justification shifted if we interpreted it through the lens of a Hebraic understanding of justice rather than a Western legal understanding (see this article or this video). This composting work is evident in the second edition of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross.
The Cross and Shame
Already, in the first edition of the book, I had begun to understand and proclaim, that the cross also liberates from shame. My understanding of how the cross does that and how to share that good news with others have both grown significantly in the last 25 years. (See, a handout I used in class that lists 11 Ways how Jesus’ life, death and resurrection liberate from shame.)
What Has Not Changed
Recently, while visiting a friend, he asked me to talk about the atonement to a relatively new Christian—specifically to introduce him to alternatives to viewing the cross as an appeasement of an angry God. I eagerly agreed. They kicked us out of the coffee shop at closing, but the young Christian wanted to continue the conversation at my friend’s home. A month or so later at a conference, during a panel discussion on another topic, a former student, asked, “Mark, how might atonement theology relate to this topic?” Grateful for the opportunity, I quickly shared a few observations. Whether with one or many, whether for a moment or hours, my passion for introducing alternative atonement theology has not lessened—more on that in a future blog.
For more on the atonement see the Atonement Resources page on my website.