Defending Substitution: A Review Essay
J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) argued nearly 100 years ago that if Christianity is anything it is a way of getting rid of sin. Machen lived at a time in which Protestant circles increasingly minimized sin, particularly individual sin against God, in favor of societal sin or evil. This was largely due to the rise of Protestant liberalism in America. One of the seemingly direct effects of Protestant liberalism’s rise was the demise in the belief of substitutionary atonement, which rendered notions of individual sin as outdated and unimportant. Yet Machen and a host of theologians and pastors like him resisted these dangerous theological innovations, realizing that doctrines such as substitutionary atonement were essential to the Gospel.[1]
Machen was right. Few doctrines, if any, are more essential to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than substitutionary atonement. By substitutionary atonement we simply mean that the divine Son of God died in our place or in our stead as a substitute in order to deal with our sins against God. Many today, like Machen’s day, continue to reject the notion that Christ’s death was substitutionary, finding it repulsive, individualistic, philosophically impossible, or unbiblical. I’m convinced, however, that the Bible clearly affirms substitutionary atonement, and presents it as utterly essential for our salvation and a right understanding of the Gospel. While we might be inclined to think of some doctrines as “heady,” “for the experts,” or “irrelevant,” we surely cannot say those things about the meaning and implications of the cross.
Simon Gathercole’s work, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Baker Academic, 2015), is a concise, helpful tool for making sense of Paul’s teachings on substitutionary atonement.[2] In what follows we’ll briefly explore some of the main features of Gathercole’s important work by considering what 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and Romans 5:6-8 say about the doctrine, along with several other related issues, such as the nature of sin and the context of Paul’s writings, along the way.
Gathercole’s Key Biblical Texts
Gathercole focuses primarily on two biblical texts in Paul’s writings to defend substitutionary atonement: 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:6-8. From the outset we note that Gathercole sees these two texts as depicting two separate, but integrally related aspects of substitutionary atonement. Each aspect is very clear in the wording of the text. They are as follows: according to 1 Corinthians, “Christ died for our sins.” According to Romans, “Christ died for us.”
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3).
We begin by noting that Christ’s death, which was “for our sins,” is, for Paul, “of first importance.” But Gathercole helpfully notes that Paul’s claim is rooted in another claim, namely, that it is “in accordance with the Scriptures.” But to which Scriptures is Paul referring? Gathercole convincingly argues that there are significant parallels between Paul’s phrasing in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Isaiah 53, particularly “for our sins.” Even a quick glance at Isaiah 53 will reveal Isaiah’s repetitious use of “for our sins,” “for our iniquities,” “for our transgressions,” and other similar phrases. Therefore, the notion that Christ would “die for our sins” is firmly rooted in Isaiah 53.
One of the reasons why Gathercole points this out is that throughout the Old Testament a person would appear die for his or her own sins, not the sins of another. Gathercole explains, “The default Old Testament position would be ‘he died for his sins’ or ‘we died for our sins.’ The miracle of the gospel, however, is that he died for our sins.”[3] In fact, Gathercole maintains that Isaiah 53 is an exception or aberration to the Old Testament refrain that a person is guilty of and dies for his or her own sin. Paul, then, picks up on this exception and applies it to Christ in order to argue that He “died for our sins.”[4]
“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6-8).
According to Romans 5, “Christ died for us.” That is, His death was vicarious. Gathercole briefly explores ancient Greek and Roman myths that supposedly parallel the vicarious death of Jesus. He argues that Paul’s setting, rather than something like Isaiah 53, “invites comparison with the examples of noble vicarious deaths from Paul’s cultural environment.”[5] The reason for such an exploration is not only to provide a proper understanding of why Paul describes Christ’s death in this way, but to also show that Paul is not merely adopting mythical accounts wholesale and applying them to Jesus.
Furthermore, Gathercole rightly notes that there are key differences between Jesus’ vicarious death and those of other mythical, heroic figures. Gathercole writes:
In the examples from classical literature, there is first the relationship, and this relationship provides the context that makes the vicarious death at least understandable, even if it is still heroic. In the case of Christ, however, his death does not conform to any existing philosophical norm. In Romans 5, Christ’s death creates a friendship where there had been enmity.[6]
In this way Paul uses a structure that is similar to the heroic myths of his own time, but demonstrates how Jesus’ vicarious death radically departs from ancient myths.
Rejecting Substitution: Sin and Sins
Gathercole remarks that most theologians who reject substitution often contend for a more corporate or societal view of sin rather than individual sin. As he puts it, they tend to emphasize sin (singular) while deemphasizing or rejecting sins (plural). Yet Gathercole quickly points out that Paul’s writings consistently discuss individual sins: “The prejudice, therefore, that Paul is not interested in sins (plural) or acts of transgression, however expressed, is a mistaken one.”[7] And just a few pages later he explains, “Sins, transgressions, individual infractions of the divine will are, however, integral to Paul’s account of humanity’s plight.”[8] Gathercole’s point proves helpful. A proper understanding of the atonement requires a biblical understanding of sin, plural and singular.
Substitutionary Atonement: One Perspective Among Many?
It’s important to keep in mind that Gathercole is defending substitutionary atonement (Christ died for us, and instead of us) in this work, not penal substitution (Christ fulfilled the demands of the law for us, and suffered the condemnation due us through imputation). Much more should be said regarding penal substitution, but that is not Gathercole’s aim here. He is merely defending the fact that substitutionary atonement is firmly rooted in Paul’s writings, particularly in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Furthermore, he is merely attempting to add substitutionary atonement to the list of perspectives on the meaning and implications of Christ’s death. Gathercole writes, “[J. D. G] Dunn has remarked that accounts of the cross in Paul need to incorporate a variety of perspectives. He lists ‘representation, sacrifice, curse, redemption, reconciliation, conquest of the powers.’ The aim of this book is to add substitution to this list.”[9] What Gathercole and Dunn mean by this is that the atonement is not depicted in the Bible solely as substitution. A host of other images and metaphors are used to explain the meaning of Christ’s death.[10]
Gathercole and Dunn are correct. Scripture uses a host of images and metaphors to describe the meaning and implications of Christ’s death. I’d only add that substitution does not seem to be just another metaphor or image for explaining the atonement. One might say it is not merely one explanation among equals. Substitutionary atonement seems more like the primary explanation of the atonement. Without it, the other images and metaphors would seem to be incoherent. Or, as Machen so aptly put it, “All of these truths are found plainly in the New Testament. But they are swallowed up in a far greater truth—that Christ died instead of us to present us faultless before the throne of God.”[11] While the Bible does, then, use other images and metaphors for explaining Christ’s death (and we must emphasize them in our preaching and teaching!), substitutionary atonement should be viewed as the central explanation.
Gathercole’s work does much to ground and defend the biblical, but often maligned, notion that Christ died for both us and for our sins. I’d recommend it to pastors and students as a concise tool for better understanding the essential doctrine of substitutionary atonement.
____________________
[1] For example, the Presbyterians, who battled over Protestant liberalism as much or more than any other group, sought to ensure the orthodoxy of their churches and ministers by requiring them to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection, and the authenticity of Christ’s miracles. In response the Auburn Affirmation rejected these additional standards for orthodoxy, arguing for the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith as the only standards for orthodoxy.
[2] Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Press, 2015).
[3] Ibid., 73.
[4] Ibid., 70-72.
[5] Ibid., 106
[6] Ibid., 106.
[7] Ibid., 50.
[8] Ibid., 54.
[9] Ibid., 54.
[10] Evangelical theologians such as Kevin Vanhoozer make similar claims as well. Vanhoozer refers to this as plurality in the Bible’s depiction and our understanding of the cross. See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Atonement” in Mapping Modern Theology, eds. Kelly M. Kapic and Bruce McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 175-202.
[11] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, new ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 101.
Recent Comments