Source: “SACRIFICE AND ATONEMENT: Psychological Motives and Biblical Patterns”, By Stephen Finlan, Fortress Press, 2016.
This podcast critiques dominant theories of atonement, particularly the penal substitutionary theory, by examining how different scholars interpret Paul's writings and the New Testament. It challenges E. P. Sanders' view that Paul's focus is primarily participationist rather than on atonement, arguing that atonement is foundational for participation. The text then addresses Ted Grimsrud's "restorative" model, which denies retributive or appeasing elements in God's saving work, asserting that the Bible, including Paul, does contain concepts of wrath and sacrifice that Grimsrud wishes away. Finally, it analyzes Michael Gorman's "new covenantal" approach, which redefines atonement to encompass community and transformative living, suggesting that while valuable, it sidesteps the problematic aspects of sacrificial theology. The author concludes by contending that Jesus himself did not intend his death as a necessary sacrifice for forgiveness, highlighting that some New Testament writings, like Luke-Acts and the Didache, are not primarily "cross-centered" or atonement-focused in their understanding of salvation.
Topic 1: Critique of Dominant Atonement Theories The text fundamentally reacts against prevailing interpretations of atonement, especially the penal substitutionary theory, which is described as a highly dominant view. While acknowledging the good intentions of various scholars who attempt to downplay or redefine atonement, the author argues that certain atonement ideas are, in fact, central for Paul. However, the author also contends that Paul's teachings, despite their centrality, inadvertently contributed to the problematic atonement theories that are still prevalent today. This sets the stage for a critical examination of how atonement has been understood and taught, particularly concerning the concept of God requiring a violent sacrifice.
Topic 2: E. P. Sanders' "Participationist" Interpretation of Paul One scholar discussed is E. P. Sanders, who is presented as arguing that Paul's use of sacrificial imagery emphasizes participation rather than cultic expiation. For Sanders, the primary significance of Christ's death for Paul is not that it provides atonement, but that through sharing in Christ's death, believers die to the power of sin, leading to a new belonging to God. Sanders suggests that reconciliation is merely a preparatory step for new life, seeing present and future transformation as paramount, with past reconciliation being of secondary importance. The author, however, critiques Sanders for creating a false dichotomy between atonement and participation, asserting that atonement actually opens the door for participation and transformation, and therefore cannot be considered of minor significance for Paul.
Topic 3: Ted Grimsrud's "Restorative" View of Salvation Another perspective explored is that of Ted Grimsrud, who emphasizes God's healing and restorative work, rather than a mechanistic salvation requiring violent sacrifice to satisfy God's honor or anger. Grimsrud insists that salvation stems from God's initiative and compassion, with no need for appeasement or satisfaction. He posits that the dynamics of justice in the Bible are restorative, not retributive, and that God responds to brokenness with unconditional mercy, similar to Old Testament sacrificial cults being expressions of gratitude or remorse, not appeasement. The author expresses a wish for Grimsrud's view to be entirely accurate but argues that it is wishful thinking to deny the presence of violent theology or appeasement in the Bible, especially in Paul's understanding where Jesus' death did produce new content making salvation possible.
Topic 4: Michael Gorman's "New Covenantal" Atonement Michael Gorman's approach is detailed as redefining atonement within the broader context of the new covenant, community, and transformative living. Gorman observes that many atonement theories are "atomistic," isolated from ethics, spirituality, and ecclesiology, and often overlook God's larger purpose to create a new people who will witness to the new covenant. For Gorman, Jesus' death inaugurated this new covenant. He asserts a strong connection between atonement and ethics, stating that "ethics is atonement in action," and highlights the neglect of the "gospel of peace" in theological study. While praising Gorman's helpful insights, the author criticizes his harmonizing efforts, particularly his tendency to let atonement "disappear" into a larger discussion of new covenant and community, thereby dodging the core problems with atonement theology, such as the idea that Jesus' death was a required payment.
Topic 5: Rejection of the Idea that God Required Jesus' Death A pivotal argument made in the text is the rejection of the notion that the Father necessitated the death of the Son. The author finds evidence in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, particularly in Jesus' parables of the tenant farmers and the wedding banquet, that God intended respect and celebration for his Son, not his death. Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem and his repeated warnings to his disciples about his coming suffering are presented as indications that his death was a humanly imposed atrocity, not God's will. The author strongly asserts that none of the atrocities committed by humans are God-willed and that believing God required the Son's death constitutes a "crazy-making theology" that is unhealthy and misrepresents God's love.
Topic 6: Discrepancy Between Jesus' Teachings and Later Christian Interpretations of His Death The text distinguishes between Jesus' own perspective and later Christian interpretations of his death. It is highlighted that Jesus, in his warnings of his coming death to his disciples, never presented it as a sacrifice or a prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins, nor did he suggest it would alter the relationship with God. These warnings were primarily about disappointment, sorrow, and ego death. The author argues that later Christians, including Paul, assigned soteriological meaning to Jesus' crucifixion, effectively turning a human atrocity into something seemingly "necessary" and "God-willed." This is seen as a deviation from Jesus' own emphasis on justice, mercy, and faith, leading to an overvaluation of the cross symbol and theories about it above the reality of God's love.
Topic 7: Luke-Acts as Non-Cross-Centered Theology A significant and detailed point is the argument that the books of Luke and Acts are not centered on the cross as the basis for salvation. The author challenges the common harmonization that assimilates Luke to Paul, asserting that for Luke, Jesus' death is part of the narrative but not the key moment where peace or salvation is achieved. Instead, Luke-Acts emphasizes Jesus' entire ministry, his life, his resurrection, his "doing good," healing, and his offering forgiveness through his name (his power and divinity) as the source of salvation. The text contrasts this with Pauline theology, which is more explicitly cross-centered. The Epistle of James is also cited as another New Testament book that omits the death of Jesus as a saving moment, focusing instead on "the implanted word," "works," and "wisdom."
Topic 8: The Eucharist and the Absence of Blood/Atonement Wording in Early Traditions This topic delves into the textual criticism of the Eucharist, particularly in Luke and the Didache. The author, aligning with many New Testament scholars, suggests that the "atonement-colored material" in Luke 22:19b-20 ("the new covenant in my blood") was likely an early interpolation into the manuscript tradition, meant to align Luke with liturgical wording that became standard, especially Pauline wording. The oldest Western manuscript of Luke and early translations reportedly lack this "blood" wording. Furthermore, the Didache, a first-century church document, is presented as having a detailed Eucharistic text without any "blood" or atonement language, interpreting the wine messianically and the bread as symbolizing the Church's unity. This strongly implies that the original Eucharist might have been a simple ceremony of remembrance and future promise, devoid of any explicit atonement message tied to Jesus' death as a sacrifice.
Topic 9: The Need for a "Jesus Lens" in Biblical Interpretation The author advocates for a critical approach to biblical texts, arguing against attempts to make the entire Bible speak with a single voice. Instead, it is proposed that the "truth value" of biblical texts varies, and that readers should acknowledge and choose the "Jesus viewpoint," or "Jesus lens." This means interpreting the Bible, envisioning God, and constructing theology through Jesus' life and teachings. The author suggests that problematic concepts, particularly those with violent or retributive theology, do not reflect Jesus' attitude and spirit and should be recognized as such, rather than being harmonized or wished away.
Topic 10: The Author's Overall Stance and Critique of Contemporary Scholarship Throughout the discussion of Sanders, Grimsrud, and Gorman, the author consistently articulates their own theological position, which involves acknowledging the presence of problematic atonement ideas in the Bible (especially in Paul) while simultaneously rejecting the notion of God requiring Jesus' death. The author critiques Sanders for creating a false dichotomy, Grimsrud for wishful thinking and denying problematic elements, and Gorman for harmonizing away critical differences and allowing atonement issues to be obscured. The author identifies with a "non-atonement model" in Gorman's system but differs from Grimsrud by admitting that propitiation is present in the Bible, albeit as a minor theme that poses a real problem. The overarching goal of the author's response is to advocate for a more honest engagement with biblical texts, one that distinguishes between Jesus' teachings and later interpretations, and challenges harmful theological concepts.