Galatians and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
It will generally surprise nobody that I am not a fan of penal substitutionary atonement, as I’ve written about it before. I do believe that PSA is one valid metaphor that helps us understand the greater truth that is the atonement. What I object to is making this particular metaphor the central fact of the atonement.
One pillar on which PSA stands is the idea that justification should be understood primarily in a judicial sense. In commenting on this on Compuserve Religion Forum, I brought material in from J. Louis Martyn. The following is quoted from my message there:
At an earlier time I would have granted the notion that Paul’s use of “justification/justify/righteousness” was related to the language of the courtroom, but I am changing my mind on that point. I have been reading Galatians through in Greek for my devotions, along with J. Louis Martyn’s commentary from the Anchor Bible series. He makes some serious points on understanding Paul’s usage of the terms, starting from the basic early Jewish-Christian (Christians of Jewish birth) understanding, through the concord between the Jewish and Gentile missions, and from there to the specific approach of the teachers against whom Paul argues in Galatians.
Let me just quote a short portion:
“. . . All of the translation options listed above [he has listed the major English translations-HN] have one weighty liability: they are at home either in the language of the law– where “to justify” implies the existence of a definable legal norm–or in the language of religion and morality–where “righteousness” implies a definable religious or moral norm. As we will see, Paul intends his term to be taken into neither of these linguistic realms. . . . ” — p. 249-250, commenting on Galatians 2:16
It would be well beyond the sort of effort I’m willing to put in to quote all the relevant arguments, not to mention it would bring up questions of copyright, but I think Martyn does an excellent job of discussing these points. In fact, those who read “justify” in a legal context fall into part of the error of the teachers who are the target of Paul’s wrath.
I would commend reading Martyn’s work on Galatians and also from his collection of essays Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. I have to admit that I have had to shift a number of my previous viewpoints on Paul’s views through reading these two books. As another example, Martyn argues convincingly that Paul never speaks of Judaism as such in Galatians. When he refers to Jerusalem as Hagar (Galatians 4:21-31) he does not mean Jews and Judaism, but rather the church of Jerusalem and specifically the mission that was claiming its support in a mission to the gentiles that required Torah observance of gentiles.
I have to add this now to my short list of books that have fundamentally shifted some portion of my Biblical understanding. Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus is first, then Gordon Fee’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, Brevard Childs’ Isaiah, and now Martyn’s Galatians. All of them powerful pieces of writing.
Feel free to comment either here or in the Religion Forum thread as linked above.
Gal.5:11 states that the cross is an offense. This offense is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. Since God demands an accounting for taking the life of your fellow man by bloodshed Jesus’ command in Acts 2:38 has made it possible for each man to repent of the sin of Jesus’ crucifixion for the forgiveness of ALL sins. This is the small narrow door into the kingdom of God. No one will escape from death by not using this small narrow gate.
Let us not get caught up in whether Paul uses courtroom language or not as this may detract from what is evident within the scriptures. Gen 3:6-24 is the record of mankind,s fall in the garden. This causes a problem when God goes looking for Adam. Both Adam and Eve hide because they now know themselves to be naked as a consequence of their sin, and have nothing to hide themselves with, they sewed together figleaves. The works of their own hands. This was not enough to allow God to pass over their sin. It was not adequate enough to cover their nakedness as it was with sinful hands they were possibly plucked and sewen together. It is obivious God cannot allow them to stay in His presence in this state and therefore they are banished from the garden. They cause the curse of God to be evoked upon, first the Sertpent and then themselves the punishment is to be very severe they are under the sentence of death. You could go into the courtroom language here but we will for now refrain from such to be fair. However if we look at this we see that God in His compassion works oeir behalf He takes the initative God takes an animal one of His own creation in v.21And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them.
American Standard Version. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Ge 3:21
This is God,s remedy in that he covers their sin by the shedding of blood. Here we have our first introduction that to appease God,s wrath there must be from mankind a recognition of his responsibility for his own sin.
9And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13And Jehovah God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
American Standard Version. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Ge 3:9
Here we see God extracting first a confession from mankind of his sin.
After his confession there is the passing of a curse or a sentence from God both on the serpent and the couple in the garden.
But because God had created mankind to enjoy God this was mankind,s chief end to enjoy him forever. God needed to set the record right for that to happen. So for God to to work His cause. For the good of mankind he banished him from the garden so that he could not eat of the tree of life and live forever in a sinful state. He then killed or made sacrifice on man,s behalf he made him coats of skins to cover his nakedness from the slaying of an animal. This was the first substitute in God,s plan penal or otherwise.
RE: Ringland’s conjecture
According to 1 Cor. 2:7-9 there was not sufficent imformation from any source to conclude why Jesus was crucified. Ringland’s proposal is basic to the conjecture of substitutionary atonement.
But Gen. 9:5 excludes the use of any human male for a satisfactory sacrifice to perfect the concept of substitutionary atonement. Since bloodshed is required for perfecting the Way for the remission of sin’s penalty the crucifixion of Jesus in and of itself cannot have been substitutionary. For even Jesus says that guilt relative to sin remains as the outstanding issue AFTER his crucifixion. Jn. 16:8. If the crucifixion of Jesus has perfected the concept of substitutionary atonement there cannot be the remaining issue of guilt relative to sin. For the proposal of substitutionary atonement’s assumptive is if the correct sacrifice is made it is the resolution of all guilt relative to sin. It is evident by Jesus’ own statement that his crucifixion could not have perfected the resolution the doctrine of substitutionary atonement assumes to be true.