GodPost

Stephen Finlan On Problems with Atonement

I’m writing a paper on the impact of modernism on doctrines of atonement and making my way through a few texts.

First book on my reading list is Stephen Finlan’s 2005 book, “Problems with Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine”.

Finlan graduated with a PhD in Pauline Theology, University of Durham, in 2004, focusing on the background and content of Paul’s cultic atonement metaphors. He’s now a research assistant for the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture at Drew University.

Stephen draws attention to a pattern of correction, rationalization and spiritualization that has dominated both scholarly and confessional discourse on atonement. He’s concerned that Hebrew, Gentile and later metaphors of atonement have been uncritically conflated and calls for a re-examination of life, death and resurrection through the lense of the doctrine of incarnation.

Sacrifice and Scapegoat

Finlan’s first chapter explores the depth of meaning found in the Hebrew and Gentile rites of sacrifice. He begins with sacrifice as gift, propitiation, an offering of the best to please and/or appease God. On another level Hebrew sacrifices were used as form of purification, releasing the life-force of the blood to restore order, cleanness to the temple and God’s people. Sacrifice came to be seen as a means of expiation, bringing forgiveness, dealing with sin. The Hebrew concept of ‘kippering’, translated into the English word ‘atonement’, is described as payoff, ransom, turning away potential retaliation.

Finlan provides a matter-of-fact description of the spiritualization process associated with the concept of sacrifice in Hebrew and other cultures. An early example of substitution, hinted at in Hebrew Scriptures, would be the replacement of human sacrifice with animal sacrifice. Moralizing interpretations insert moral and universal meanings into the sacrificial practices. Internalization of religion focuses on the attitudes of the sacrificer. Metaphorical use of cultic terms is found in Paul’s reference to the body as the temple. The most radical spiritualization is the complete rejection of sacrificial practice, a move seen in writing by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea.

Finlan goes on to explore the expulsion rituals of the Hebrew scriptures and commonly found in Hittite, Greek and Mesopotamian societies. The scapegoat concept was used by these societies to transfer curse or sin onto the victim. Finlan stresses that the concept of scapegoat must be distinguished from the concept of sacrifice. Sacrifice, he reminds us, “has nothing to do with punishing the animal but with the purifying power that the lifeblood is thought to have”.

Paul’s Use of Metaphors

Finlan goes on to the heart of his PhD, Paul’s use of cultic metaphor. His thesis here is that Paul uses multiple metaphors and models to ullustrate the meaning of the death of Christ. Paul refers to Christ’s death in terms of sacrificial sin-sprinkling and sin-bearing scapegoat. He also appears to have made references to the Hellenistic rhetoric of nobly dying for his people (later seen in terms of martyrdom). He goes on to use social metaphors to describe the beneficial results of Christ’s death for believers: justification (from the legal court), reconciliation (diplomatic metaphor), and adoption (family metaphor), and ransom (freedom for slaves). Paul used many of these metaphors in the same sentence, focusing on the many meanings of the death of Jesus, rather than developing a systematic theology. It was in the combination of the metaphors that the concept of penal substitution began to emerge.

I like this quote from Finlan:

“In the interests of making the Gospel marketable, Paul poured the new wine into old conceptual forms, spiced with a dose of spiritualizing, and enlivened by the real spiritual experience that he and his fellows were having. But this means that some incompatible religious ideas were yoked together. Whatever could “preach” could stay; but this has caused confusions to later Christians”.

Buy your copy of Stephen Finlan’s Problems With Atonement online at Amazon.com

Atonement After Paul

Finlan provides an analysis of atonement doctrines developed in the early Church (Patristic theologians), medieval Church and Reformation movement.

Rescue Theories

Finlan classes together the Christus Victor and so-called ransom theories as the Rescue Theories - concepts of cosmic rescue and triumph over evil forces. Irenaeus sees Christ rescuing humanity by rescuing human nature itself. Origen of Alexandria sees the whole of life and teaching of Christ as saving. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, is described as seeing salvation as a salvage and restoration job that emanates from the incarnation itself. Augustine combines a ransom theory (tricking the devil) with a judicial theory in which Christ takes the penalty for our sin.

Satisfaction Theory

Finlan writes that Anselm (11th century) constructed a theory based on the social structure of his time, providing a feudal structure to salvation. God, the offended Lord, must have compensation for the affront to his honor by sinful humanity.

Moral Influence Theory

Peter Abelard, not long after Anselm, rejected all ransom and satisfaction theories, focusing instead on the moral effect of Christ’s life and death on the person who honestly believes it. Abelard pointed out that the whole of Jesus’ life counted, not just the violent end.

Reformation Theories

Finlan explores the atonement theories developed by Luther and Calvin. He points to the doctrines of absolute depravity, universal guilt and a ‘horrifying transfer of divine wrath to the undeserving Son’ as monstrous teachings that have made Christianity unpalatable to believers.

I think this section is perhaps the weakest in Finlan’s book. Finlan gives us a conflated view of the voices of the Reformation, focusing largely on Luther, ignoring the large number of alternative voices of the time.

The Incarnation

Finlan is concerned that the primary Christian doctrine of the incarnation has been interpreted through secondary doctrines such as substitutionary atonement, rather than the other way around. He acknowledges the concern that the rejection of such secondary doctrines can lead to a wholesale rejection of all doctrine. He acknowledges that much of Paul’s writing points to the life and death and resurrection of Jesus in terms of atonement metaphors. Finlan hopes to convince his readers to read the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures without imposing the ‘penal substitionary atonement’ model on them. He concludes with the thought that the early Christian doctrine of theosis may be a useful way ahead in developing a deep and useful understanding of Christ.

I’ll finish with a quote from a quote from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:19):

“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”.

As I read the text around that statement, I’ll be reading with an appreciation of the many metaphors being used by Paul. I’ll also be looking to see what difference it makes to read through with the doctrine of incarnation as the lense.