 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
 Revisiting atonement |
Posted May 22, 2009; 9:12 pm |
|
In the article “Revisiting atonement” (MB Herald, April) Elmer Martens downplays the “penal” in penal substitutionary atonement. There are three basic errors in Martens’ discussion of atonement.
First, he gives us the impression that penal substitution portrays “an angry God who needs to punish because he is just.” This is wrong because it is incomplete. If God’s justice were all that mattered, then there would have been no atonement and He would have let us go to hell. Penal substitution portrays a God who is angry with sinners and who loves them. Penal substitution is necessary because of man’s sin and God’s righteousness; but it was God’s love for humanity that made it happen.
Second, Martens interprets Isaiah 53 in the context of the immediate preceding chapters, saying that the theme of God’s tenderness in those chapters precludes the idea of an angry God in chapter 53. God’s tenderness is indeed the dominant theme of chapters 49 to 54; but it is a tenderness that logically follows the completion of God’s judgment against His people because of their sin (a,b). Throughout the book of Isaiah there is a constant movement back and forth from one theme to another: indictment (c), judgment, restoration. The themes of a loving God and an angry God are intertwined and do not preclude each other.
Third, Martens claims that Isaiah 53 has the feeling of a hospital rather than a courtroom. It has rather the feeling of an execution for a crime—the crime of another and an execution that follows the courtroom drama found in other parts of Isaiah (d). While chapter 53 does have 3 references to sickness and healing (e), it has 9 references to sin and punishment (f).
Isaiah 53 therefore is not just about substitution, it’s about penal substitution. The errors in the reasoning of a person of the calibre of Elmer Martens suggest that he is biased against this aspect of the message of the Bible.
a. Isaiah 51:17-23; 54:5-8.
b. “In a surge of anger
I hid my face from you for a moment,
but with everlasting kindness
I will have compassion on you,"
says the LORD your Redeemer.” (Isaiah 54:8)
c. Isaiah 1, 28, 29, 50:1-3.
d. “Review the past for me,
let us argue the matter together;
state the case for your innocence.” (Isaiah 43:26)
e. “Surely he took up our pain” (v.4). “and bore our suffering,” (v.4). “and by his wounds we are healed.” (v.5)
f. “But he was pierced for our transgressions,” (v.5). “he was crushed for our iniquities;” (v.5). “the punishment that brought us peace was on him,” (v.5). “and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (v.6). “By oppression and judgment he was taken away.” (v.8). “for the transgression of my people he was punished.” (v.8). “and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin,” (v.10). “and he will bear their iniquities.” (v.11). "For he bore the sin of many," (v.12). |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Link to Dr. Marten's Herald Article |
Posted May 22, 2009; 11:15 pm |
|
| for those who wish to either agree or disagree with Ken's opening post here is the link to Dr. Marten's article: link |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted May 23, 2009; 7:41 am |
|
I read this article and thought he was mainly suggesting that this text did include the idea of substitution yet he thought it was less about penal substitution than it was about the healing of our infirmities. Then I wondered whether he really believes in penal or rather a 'representative substitution' as I am not that familiar with the writer. And also if he is indicating that our physical healings are provided for us in the atonement. Or was he just making a point that a certain text can have a broader view than what has been primarily accepted. I guess I probably have missed the real intent behind this article. 
I believe he is going up against many noted scholars if he is saying that penal substitution is not in this text. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted May 25, 2009; 12:35 pm |
|
I wouldn't be so hard on Martens. Historically speaking, Penal Substitution was non-existent before the 11th century (or technically the Reformation, but it is similar to the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, as developed by Anselm in the 11th century).
Personally, I don't give much credence to Penal Substitution. The NT teaching on atonement is constantly shifting between metaphors. The PS theory goes too far imo, in turning a metaphor into systematic theological teaching. Furthermore, Anabaptist theology doesn't endorse PS theory. Most Anabaptist theologians I have crossed paths with prefer a metaphorical approach rather than a systematic approach to atonement. Anabaptists tend to emphaize a practical theology over a systematic one. No doubt, evangelical influences on the MB community have led meany MBers to accept PS.
In regards to Is 53. I think it is important to keep in mind whose punishment Christ endured. Was it man, God, or both? I think it was man's punishment. God's role was sending his Son into the world, knowing he would suffer for the Truth. I would hesitantly agree that there is substitution in a sense, but that's not the point. The point is that God took on flesh, and took on all the temptations, sufferings, etc, that is representative of being human, and finally death also. God 'sacrificed' his divine nature to be fully human. Otherwise, God would be alien to us. We know the Father through the Son, because the Son became one of us. I think PS theory suggests that God took out his righteous anger on Jesus so that we may be saved. I don't think any Biblical passage suggests that. I don't think God ever took out his anger on Jesus. Atonement did not come through satsifying God's anger. It came through the incarnation of Christ, such that God may be one of us, and we may be one with God. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
|
|
|
| Ryan Member Joined Jul 22, 2008 26 posts Location: Nanaimo, BC |
| |
Posted May 26, 2009; 5:29 pm |
|
Like Todd, I think we need to cut Martens some slack. There's only so much you can say in an 700 word article—it's impossible to cover enough bases to keep everyone happy. I, for one, welcomed the balance he brought and appreciated his willingness to give an example of a veteran scholar changing his mind (even if slightly) about an important matter. I think his humility is admirable; I certainly would be extremely hesitant of accusing him of "errors in reasoning" or "bias" against some interpretation of Scripture. He concludes his article thus:
| Quote: | | No less now than when I was a youngster, I have need of “atonement.” My appreciation for the suffering servant, Christ the stricken, crucified one, grows with the insights from Isaiah 53. Christ is a substitute; the metaphor, however, is enlarged. (A single picture of atonement cannot convey it all.) |
This hardly sounds like someone deliberately attempting to move away from a substitutionary understanding of atonement to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
