Thursday, April 12, 2007

more questions for penal substitution

If the point of Jesus' death was to pay the price for sin, and the price of sin is death, wasn't it kind of cheating to raise him to life again? What price has really been paid there if he just comes back to life again? Especially if God knew that was what would happen.

I'm more and more convinced this theory isn't even internally coherent. I think the reason many still believe it is because it conforms to many of our (flawed) ideas of justice - an eye for an eye, etc., projected onto God. But this is exactly what Jesus reveals is anathematic to the nature of God - "...but I say to you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of God. For God makes the sun to shine on the good and the evil, and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust".

3 comments:

Unordered said...

I know there are answers to your questions, but I'm going to have to do a lot more reading to be able to understand it all enough to write them down. I'm working on it.

Sarah said...

Just lost my long comment. Here's the summary.

Interesting post here

1. Ransom Redemption. From the 2nd century on. Orthodox
2. Satisfaction. From the 11th century on. Catholic
3. Penal Substitution. From the 16th century on. Protestant

Have you come across these?

mr jones and me said...

Hey thanks sarah, that's really helpful, and sorry blogger ate your original comment (it seems to do that a fair bit)...I hadn't come across them, and Stephen Finlan looks like a helpful resource to add to the discussion...there is certainly a lack of consensus over where the concepts have come from and how they reached us the way they did...what I'm interested in is how we can unravel them for people.

and unordered, I'd love to hear anything you have to say on this...