Transcription
Hey everyone, this is Patrick. And last week, we thought about Holy Saturday. This week, we're actually going to think about the atonement. Since it's still Easter season, and the atonement is such an important doctrine in the Christian faith.
And Todd and I actually read this new book by Josh McNall on the atonement, where he gave an argument for kind of combining many of the theories of atonement that you have in different traditions. We found it really helpful, so we've invited him on to think about this.
Atonement in Christian theology is the reconciliation of God and humankind through Jesus Christ. What happened on the cross? What was accomplished on the cross? And so, this is a really great episode. I hope you enjoy it. Let's get going.
You're listening to Food Trucks in Babylon, a Western Seminary podcast with Dr. Todd Miles and Dr. Patrick Shriner. Listen as they discuss matters of faith, theology, and culture in a post-Christian world.
[Music]
We are here on Food Trucks in Babylon with a special guest, Josh McNall, who is Assistant Professor of Pastoral Theology at Oklahoma Wesleyan University. He is the author of *The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ's Work*. And so, thanks for coming on with us, Josh.
Yeah, thanks for having me, guys. Hey, I, I want to start off at the beginning, just by saying this is an excellent book. Uh, you are to be commended for it. Uh, we, we just read it in, uh, THM seminar that I taught here at Western Seminary, and a number of the students said, not only this was their favorite book in the seminar, it's the best book they've read all year.
Wow. So, so thanks. Yeah, thanks for that. And I picked it up because it looks so pretty. And, um, actually, I did, the way they put it together was really nice. Yeah, Zondervan, they did a great job with the, uh, with the cover image and just kind of the art all, all the way through. So, uh, I'm definitely okay if people, uh, judge the book by its cover.
Yeah, I thought it was excellent too. I, I read it after I, I wasn't in the THM seminar, but, um, he's hoping to get into the teaching program at some point. Since I run it, since I run the program, I'm hoping to be a part of it. Back door himself into the program. I, uh, I just kind of heard, I saw actually your outline, um, with the body of Jesus, and we'll talk about that, and I thought that's genius. And so I wanted to read it partially because I just love the metaphor you gave. So maybe you can begin, since I'm already talking about it, and just tell us, uh, the metaphor you use for these atonement, uh, I think you call them models. Is that correct?
Yeah, yeah. Um, well, you know, the, the body metaphor for, is clearly, it's not unique to me, but, uh, I stole it from the Apostle Paul. And, um, I wanted a way to integrate different models of atonement, different, you know, different words are, you know, you can use theme, model, theory, image, um, but I wanted to integrate different approaches to the atonement in a way that didn't pit them against each other as if they're kind of in a competition for dominance, um, but also didn't just leave those different approaches to Christ's work, those different models, just sort of spread out on the table unconnected.
And, yeah, like silos, just, yeah, just left separate. There's, there's different approaches obviously to the doctrine. Um, and so I outline in the book, um, what I call disconnected plurality, that's just kind of leaving these different models out there on the table unconnected, or defensive hierarchy. On the other extreme, where you pit them against each other. And so the metaphor of Christ's body, and I just, I just, you know, use four sort of parts, feet, heart, head, and hands, is an attempt to show how these different models actually fit together, uh, in specific ways, but not in a way that privileges or prioritizes one model against or over and above the others.
Yeah. Well, so let's ask this question. U, why did you feel the need to do that? What were you seeing in the academy or in the church, Christian culture at large, that that that made you want to maybe push back against the idea of of pitting one model against another?
Yeah, and I, I think, you know, theology scholarship goes in phases, and two of the trends that I, I had noticed in atonement theology, but it also had kind of filtered, filtered over to the church world a little bit, were those two extremes. On the one side, the disconnected plurality, it's sometimes called, just the kaleidoscopic view of the atonement. Yeah, which has some real value to it, because there are multiple, uh, features and aspects to Christ's work. And so that was a trend that was out there. Um, and it was really an attempt to correct what I mentioned earlier as this sort of reductionistic, um, pitting different models against each other approach. And so what I saw in, in the scholarship, but also a little bit in the church, there were these two extremes, and I wanted to try to plot a third option that I feel like is a more integrated approach. And I'm not the only one to do that. I think that's been something that other scholars have have attempted as well. Jeremy Treat did a great book on the atonement called, *The Crucified King*, and, um, and so I thought he was on the same track, and he was influential for me. Kevin Vanhoozer, um, has attempted something similar. So I'm certainly not the only one to sort of attempt this sort of middle way or this third way, but I do think it's something that's needed to avoid those two extremes.
Yeah. And so we could probably just cut right to the chase on this too, that that that kind of the battleground doctrine is is penal substitution. Yeah, you know, that's the one that is pitted against the others. And you either love penal substitution and are suspect of anyone who would maybe argue for a Christus Victor or recapitulation, or you just flat don't like penal substitution at all. Right.
Exactly. Yep. Yeah, that has been the firebrand, that has been the, the flashpoint in the debate. And it has unfortunately, uh, as somebody myself who affirms a sort of nuanced view of penal substitution, I think unfortunately, it has led to those two kind of polarized extremes, where you either lift it up as the ultimate, um, or in some cases, almost the only approach to Christ's work, or you feel pressured to reject it as abusive and unbiblical and irrational. And I just think that's a real tragedy, um, as someone who does see penal substitution in the scriptures. And I, and I do, I mean, it starts with anom. I don't think so. Yeah. So I think there's a better way than those two kind of polarized approaches to it. And I think one of the reasons I liked it, I mean, number one, you did a good job writing it, it flowed very well, but I think you just, um, articulated something that I had thought before, but I hadn't put precise wording to, if that makes sense. So I was unsatisfied with kind of just taking penal substitution, saying this is the most important, and then leaving it there. And I was also unsatisfied with kind of, like you said, laying them out all on the table, but not explaining how they work together. Yeah, but I didn't have really precise answers or language for how to fit them together. And that's where your Mosaic kind of comes in. And so you, you have two side-by-side metaphors, it seems like, Mosaic and a body. Um, do you, I, I don't, I, I'm not leading anywhere in this. Do you feel like those ever conflicted in your own mind as you wrote this, or do you feel like that those two images, those two metaphors, just kind of work together?
Yeah, I think they can be complimentary. I mean, we even have mosaics, I mentioned a really famous one in the Hagia Sophia, that is of Christ, um, at least, you know, maybe not his whole body, but it is of his body. Yeah. And so I think think they can be complimentary. And another way that they're complimentary is, you know, I focus on four pieces, feet, heart, head, and hands, but clearly there are more members or parts of Christ's body than just those four. Um, right, right. And, and so that allows me to say, look, I'm not trying to write the sort of comprehensive, definitive work on the atonement. Um, I recognize that there may be more pieces, um, than just the ones I've laid out, and that there's further work to be done. Uh, we're never going to exhaust the, the greatness and the mystery of Christ's work. And so the Mosaic allows me to say, the thing I like about a mosaic, first of all, as opposed to a puzzle, you know, when a p, in a puzzle, the goal is to kind of figure it out. And whereas in a mosaic, at least in sort of the ancient or the the classic mosaics of the church, the goal is is not to figure it out, but to worship and to use the image as a way of pointing us to the image, which is Christ, the perfect image of, of God. And so I felt like the, the body metaphor could be complimentary with, with the metaphor of the Mosaic.
Yeah, that makes sense. And do you use the language of model intentionally? Do you prefer that over images or theories or, now I'm running out of other words that we use for this. The New Testament guy over here trying to trying to play with the systematics.
Stay in your lane. [Laughter] Man, yeah. I lay out in the introduction, actually, in a footnote, um, basically just some different words that people use to talk about the aspects of Christ's work. And so on the one end, there are words like image or theme or metaphor, that are very biblical, like forbearance, sacrifice would be one. Um, they're very biblical, but by themselves, they don't necessarily lend a ton of explanatory value for how exactly Christ's work works. Um, so they require more explanation. And then on the other end of the spectrum of, of those words, we have a word like theory. Theory of atonement. And I personally tend to avoid that word because, uh, specifically because of some of the rationalistic or scientific connotations of it. I feel like they start to, they start to connote this sense that I've, I've mastered it, I've explained it, um, I've, I've completely figured it out. And I feel like with models, there's explanatory value. Uh, I use the kind of the, the analogy of, I used to build model airplanes, and I could learn a lot about a fighter jet by building or playing with a model of it, but there's a very clear difference between the model and the thing itself. And, and so I speak of models of atonement, hopefully as a way of recognizing that my explanation and my articulation is quite different than the thing itself.
Gotcha. So there's the reality of atonement, and then there are our attempts to sort of describe it and point to it. And so that's, that's one of the reasons I like the language of of model, is it's a, it's kind of between image or theme on the one end that doesn't really explain very much, and then theory on the other extreme that maybe purports to explain a little too much. And maybe we've gotten ahead of ourselves, just for listeners who are probably wondering, what are we even talking about when we say atone? Like, we've, we've probably just entered this conversation without explaining, like, when you say models of atonement, what, what are we, what are we, what are we referring to here?
Yeah, what I'm referring to are basically some different ways of articulating the work of Christ to save. And so the four, uh, models or pieces that I, I look at in the book are recapitulation. The idea that Jesus comes as the second Adam, or the true Adam, or the last Adam, to act on behalf of the human race as the the true head of his people. So that's one model, Jesus has kind of this new and true Adam. Um, the next model, the heart, is what I refer to as penal substitution and vicarious judgment. So the idea that Jesus takes the penalty or the judgment that was due to to us, his people, on our behalf, and he, he bears that penalty. And so that's the second model, penal substitution and vicarious judgment. I think both of those are important, both aspects of that. The third one is is triumph, or Christus Victor, Christ the Victor. And that looks at atonement specifically as this great victory, this great conquest that Jesus accomplished, defeating evil, defeating Satan, and, and the principalities and powers. And so that's the third one, the head. And then the fourth one is sometimes called moral influence. The idea that, uh, Jesus's this incredible act of love compels us to run to God rather than running away from God. And it actually, it's transformative in its example, but also, I would add, through the power of the Holy Spirit, it's not just an example. Um, the, the spirit is involved there. So those are the four models: recapitulation, penal substitution, vicarious judgment, Christus Victor, Christ the Victor, and then lastly, moral influence.
Were you tempted to add any other ones?
You know, there were other ones that I, I, that I talk about, but in most cases, not all cases, the other models, I think, can be located under one of those, um, subsumed under them. Yeah. So, so an example of that would be the sort of scapegoat theory of René Girard, the the literary critic. Um, it's, it's really a version of moral influence, just, you know, it's a novel version and kind of a unique one, maybe helpful in certain ways and problematic in other ways, but it, I think it should be located under the, the moral influence umbrella.
Any thoughts on governmental theory? Did you?
Yeah, I didn't, I didn't interact with Grotius or the governmental theory, uh, too much. I think that's, you know, certainly could be, I, I could be convinced, perhaps, that that's another piece or that it's, you know, connected. Yeah. I don't know what that would be like, the, like the brain, or the muscle, or the something of, of that body.
Mustard? I don't know. The mustache. That's right. That's right. That's right.
Well, well, let's jump in. It, and and think about what you called the feet of the atonement, uh, which is, uh, recapitulation. And so you take us back to the, to the second, second century with, with, with Irenaeus. And just, just to lay all my cards on the table here, I, the, the first and fourth chapters of this book, I thought were the, the most interesting to me, because you argue that recapitulation plays a very foundational role, which I think is why you called it the feet of the atonement. It's, it's right. And so, explain what you mean by, uh, recapitulation being the feet of the atonement.
Yeah, well, you know, I think it's foundational in a few ways, but I think the logic that Irenaeus lays out, and I think he's on pretty solid biblical ground when he does this, is that he, he lays out why it is that Christ can act on behalf of others or on behalf of the whole human race. And his argument is that Christ is the, the rightful head of the entire human race, uh, in the sense that Adam, Irenaeus argues, was patterned after the image of the incarnate Christ, even though Christ was yet to be incarnate when Adam was formed. So that if you want to think of the family tree that is the human race as a tree with roots that go deep into the soil, I think Irenaeus's argument is that the deepest root of that ever expanding family tree is not Adam, but the one that Adam was patterned after, the, the perfect, true image of the invisible God, which is Christ. And so in the, in the scriptures, I think, but also in Irenaeus, the, the head can act for the whole. And so just as Adam's failure sort of echoes down and, and catastrophically affects the whole of the human race, so too the actions of Adam's head and source can echo down and have redemptive, uh, repercussions for the whole. And so that's one aspect of why I think recapitulation, the, the logic of it, or the, the biblical presuppositions behind it, are foundational.
And you, you also throughout, throughout the book, very helpfully explain how these different models are, are interconnected. And so maybe for some people who might be listening to this podcast, and you're, you're firmly in that penal substitution camp, what is it that qualifies Jesus to substitute for us?
Right. And, and it's not just that he was sinless. It's not just that he was the Son of God, uh, but it was the fact that he is the prototype, as it were.
Yeah. Yeah. The, and I think that is one of the ways that it's really important to affirm, sort of an Irenaean or a neo-Irenaean view of recapitulation, maybe even before you talk about penal substitution, because I think one, maybe the biggest problem for penal substitution is what I call the problem of penal non-transfer. That's kind of jargony. Other people call it the justice worry. I think Oliver Crisp calls it that. And basically, it's, it's a very relatable, pastoral, um, question. And the question is, how in the world can an innocent person justly take the punishment for guilty people, um, and have that not be just a farce of logic and the overthrow of justice? You know, and so that's a challenge for substitution is to think how it is that Christ, who is sinless, can justly, uh, take the penalty for the guilty. And I think recapitulation, Irenaeus's logic of it, helps with that, because he, he argues that the head can biblically act on behalf of the whole. And the reason is that the, the whole, the people are bound up with their head in a similar way to we see David stepping out and bearing the insults of Goliath, um, but he's also accomplishing that victory on behalf of the whole people as the anointed, um, king. And so recapitulation, I think, the presuppositions behind it, Christ is the true head, the deepest root of the human family tree, helps to articulate why it is just for him to step in, not just in winning the victory, but also in bearing the, the penalty.
So I have a question about this one. Sure. And I don't know if my question is going to be completely coherent, but could, it seems like this model is less specific than like the penal substitution or Christus Victor or even moral influence. Is there some way of framing it where this could almost be outside of a model, but more of a foundation for the other models? In other words, is, is recapitulation a model of the atonement, or is it something else upon which we describe how the other three models work? Does that, does that question make any sense?
Yeah, and it's actually one that's come up in conversations with other scholars. Um, and so, for instance, uh, my friend Johnson, who's an atonement scholar, um, he kind of pushed back initially and said, I don't really think recapitulation is a model. I think it's more like, uh, I like this guy. No, I'm just kidding. I'm not saying I don't think so. I just, when I read the book, it raised the question. I was like, is this a model? Well, he used the image of, and I'm going to show you, I'll try to say why I think he's insightful here, but I also disagree a little bit. You think I'm wrong? I'm actually not saying that. I'm just wondering. Yeah, he talked about it almost, if you're going to use the Mosaic imagery, as like the adhesive that holds the pieces together. And I, I agree with him, and I also disagree a little bit. And the way I agree with him is, I think by itself, recapitulation, um, is not a model if it's just that, well, Jesus is the true Adam. Like, well, okay, that's true biblically, right? But it's not yet a model to go back to my earlier spectrum, because it hasn't yet rendered some sort of explanatory answer to the how question, right? How does it work? Right, right. So I think that recapitulation becomes a model once the presuppositions of Irenaeus come into play for how it works. And specifically, it works because biblically speaking, the head, head is bound up with the whole, and the head can act on behalf of the whole. And so I think that starts to lend some explanatory value to the how question that you actually need before you move on to the penal sub, or the triumph, um, or even the moral influence pieces. And so I think with, so in the book, because Adam and I were talking previously, I try to not refer to, to, um, recapitulation alone as a model, but rather the sort of integrated with the other ones. Yeah, and sort of the Irenaean presuppositions behind it as, as becoming a, a kind of explanatory.
Right, right. Yeah. And what I really did like is you explaining penal substitution and Christus Victor, for that matter, the rest of them don't work without this one. Yeah, you can't have who is he a substitute for, right, without this kind of federal or representative headship.
Yeah. So, yeah, that was really good. Well, we're going to take a little break here and come back and talk about the other three models.
My name is C. Miller, and I'm in the THEOP program here at Western Seminary, working on my M.Div. Two things I really love about the THEOP program: First is the cohort-style learning. I have come to love and really cherish my time with the people in my cohort. I've been in the program for nine months now, and it's one of my favorite things about being a part of the classes. Second thing I really love about THEOP is the emphasis on practical application. So whatever we're learning, whether it be, uh, hermeneutics or theology, uh, it's always being applied. How does this affect people in our ministry context? Western Seminary serves as a catalyst and resource for spiritual transformation by providing with and for the church advanced training for strategic ministry roles. If you're interested in learning more about Western or starting your application, visit us online at WesternSeminary.edu. Now back to the show.
Okay, welcome back. Um, we're with, uh, Josh McNall here, talking about, uh, *The Mosaic of Atonement*. But one of the things we do in this podcast is ask about food. Food trucks, specifically. So, um, Josh, do you have any food trucks near you in, are you in Oklahoma?
Right. Yes, I'm in, uh, kind of semi-small town Oklahoma.
Okay. What town are you?
It's called Bartlesville. It's about 45 minutes north of Tulsa.
Okay. We do not have a lot of food trucks in small town Oklahoma. Uh, we do have a couple. There's, there's a place. I say you're alive right now. You're speaking, so you are able to feed yourself. Yeah, I have had some caloric intake over the past 38 years or whatever. Um, but yeah, we, we do have a couple food trucks, but I haven't frequented them, um, maybe much or if or at all, really.
Sorry. Is there a place you like to go with your family or by yourself if you're a loner, um, to eat in terms of food? The new thing for me in the last, uh, the last several months is I've, I've never been a cook. My, my wife's a great cook. Um, but I bought a Traeger grill.
Oh, those are awesome. I just bought a Green Mountain grill, so I'm on the opposite side, but I love smoking. I don't know. I don't even know this about this war, but I bought a Green Mountain. So yeah, it's very similar to the penal substitution, Christus Victor thing.
That's right. In what way? That's right. Why am I not surprised? Patrick, why am I not surprised?
That's right. Um, what do you like to smoke on there?
My favorite thing has been salmon. That's been pretty good. I've been working on ribs, but here's, here's the thing, like, I'm on Team Traeger by default because I spent like way too much money on this grill, but I have been a little disappointed with the smokiness of the meat on the Traeger. And so maybe, maybe you're right, maybe Green Mountain is, is the way to go. Your next book will be *Mosaic of Smokers*.
Well, that could mean a lot of different. Traeger isn't really a smoker per se, right? It's, it's, it's cooking with indirect heat in a smoke environment. That's right. Yes. So I purchased a couple tubes, they're called like smoker tubes, and you just throw more wood pellets in there and then put the T, light them and throw them on the grill to try to smoke it up a little bit. Um, which has raised some strange conversations at work, since I'm a part of a denomination that historically has been pretty anti-smoking. All of the talk of me smoking constantly at all hours of, right, stuff like that.
Well, we have an episode on marijuana, so this could fit nicely into that one too, right?
So, sounds great. Let's, let's talk about penal substitution for a while. And I thought your little kind of, well, I'll say it this way, it seems like you went C.S. Lewis on us here and talked about a mere substitution or a mere penal subs. Maybe you'd like to explain what you were doing with that.
Yeah, I thought it was important because it's such a controversial topic in theology. Um, one of the things I noticed when I was reading the various treatments of it, and sometimes the polemics about it, was that everybody was talking about it, but a lot of people wouldn't ever define what it was, um, at a just a really basic level. And so for people who are anti-penal substitution, the version that they would set forth was almost this, this pagan view of Jesus as the whipping boy, you know, and the angry father, and the innocent child, and child. Yep. Cosmic child abuse. And, yep, like we're stuck in this perpetual Talladega Nights episode, right, with, with, with just little baby Jesus. Actually, be totally in favor of that. But that was right. So I thought, first of all, what we need to do before we start talking about it is to just define the most basic, minimal, uh, definition of penal substitution. And so I call that mere penal substitution. And, and so I tried to just define it in the most basic terms before getting into more specific varieties or species of penal substitution. And those were, uh, some notion of substitution, some, some, some notion of a penalty, and, and then it was, it wasn't just kind of an ad hoc or accidental sort of thing, it was that way by God's design, some divine sanction. So divine sanction, substitution, and penalty bearing were the three kind of things that you have to have together. You can't just have, they have to be together for a view, I think, to qualify, um, as, as under that label.
So if you're, um, getting your haircut in Portland, Oregon, or in Oklahoma, and you're trying to explain to someone who's never been to seminary, what penal substitution is, yeah, how would you do that? Maybe without some of those terms that are a little harder to understand?
Yeah, one of the terms I, I like to use is is judgment. Almost. I think that's in some cases more helpful when you're just talking to lay people, rather than punishment. You know, punishment language on, on one level, may be true, but sometimes does veer a little bit closer to this, this misconception that what we have is, you know, this wrathful father punishing his son so that he can forgive other people. You know, and so I like to speak of Jesus graciously and willingly taking upon himself the divine judgment for human sin. That Christ, first of all, he's not a child, right? To go back to the thing. That's right. Not he was a man. He had a beard, you know, and so, so the whole reference to child abuse is misplaced because, you know, he's, he's a man who, uh, as, as one, as one author in the tradition says, takes hold of his cross like a king takes hold of his scepter. And so he's an agent. He's an agent in atonement. He is not just a passive victim in this process. And so as an agent, Christ, God the Son, willingly embraces the cross, taking upon himself the judgment for human sin. And the father is not this, this actor who is pitted against the son, but rather it's out of his love. You know, God so loved the world that he sent the son, right? And so I'm big on the idea that all three members of the Trinity, that's right, are working together in harmony to bring about salvation. And so we can't pit them against each other, uh, in, in atonement or in any other aspect of, of theology.
Yeah. And here's where systematics is so important, right? Just there are Trinitarian boundaries that we dare not cross when we're talking about something as important as the atonement. And as, as you just said, we can't pit the Father against the Son against the Spirit, because there is a unity to the divine actions. And what the Father is doing, the Son and the Spirit are doing. They might be doing it uniquely, right, each individual person of the Trinity, uh, but, but they are, it is one action, right?
Yeah. One of the, um, discussions we've had on this podcast with others is seems to be something that is continually coming up, at least in some of our circles, is, um, what this divine sanction, as you call it, is. And whether Christ, like, took the wrath of God himself, or was that placed upon sin? And you kind of give, I think you call it several rooms. I'm just looking at page 105 here, several rooms that you can kind of enter in terms of what this divine sanction is. Can you give us kind of a rundown of, briefly, what you, either you can just tell us what you think, uh, the scriptures are pointed to, or give us some options of what you think fits within penal subs?
Yeah, I think there's different ways that you can articulate it. And, um, in terms of both in terms of what the penalty is, but also how you think of, um, divine sanction. And, and so I think for me, personally, the ultimate focus of the judgment is, it's, it's sin, more than the son. Um, and if you focus too much on, as the ultimate focus of divine wrath, rather than sin, then it does start to sound a little bit like some of the smears, cosmic child abuse, or or things like that. Um, and so I quote, you know, P.T. Forsyth and some of his imagery, and, and sometimes maybe he can lean in a little bit too hard to metaphor and, and almost be mastered by his metaphors, but Forsyth talks about how there's a penalty and a curse for sin, and Christ consented to enter that region, um, and so in that way, Christ entered the wrath of God, he bore God's penalty upon sin, but he, he phrases it in such a way as to kind of carefully avoid this sort of passive victim, um, construal. And so I would speak, I would tend to speak, um, as of sin as the ultimate focus of divine judgment. But clearly, because Christ bears that sin as the head of the human race, he experiences it as a horrific penalty, you know, and much so that he cries out, you know, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" So he took on, like, more that he took on the penalty. Maybe that language is more precise. The divinely is that what you like? The covenantal penalty? The divinely sanctioned judgment? Those would all be ways that I would be comfortable speaking about it.
So, Josh, this raises the question, if the, if the primary focus of the Father's wrath, or is against sin, the, the penalty for sin, what do we make of some passages that that speak towards, uh, this, this son being the focal point? Like Isaiah 53:10, where we read that the Lord was pleased to to crush him severely?
Yeah, well, I'd have to do more work on that passage specifically, but I think because the son is bearing sin, it is technically appropriate to speak of him as under divine judgment. So I don't think that's inappropriate. But if the question is, what do I find least likely to be misconstrued or misunderstood in, in terms of how we explain it, you know, you were talking about, like, to a layperson or whatever, I would be more apt to focus on the judgment upon sin that is borne by the son. So to go back to Isaiah, and I'm not an Isaiah scholar by any stretch, but I wouldn't read the pleased, or the pleased, I don't even know if that's a word. It is now. It is. I wouldn't read, however you read that, I, I think it's important not to read as as this sort of maniacal, laughing, sadistic, yeah, pleased that takes delight in, you know, exacting this bloody punishment. Um, so that, however you construe it, I would, I would be wary of kind of verging into that sort of territory. Um, I think, and again, it's important to remember that as a, as the second member of the Trinity, um, that, that the son also is pleased, you know, to accomplish this redemption, despite the horrific nature of the cross. In fact, the scriptures speak of how it was for the joy set before him, you know, that Christ endured the cross. And, and so it is appropriate, I think, to speak of the son as, um, undergoing the divinely sanctioned judgment for sin. But I'd be wary of, you know, putting the emphasis too much on the "it pleased" there, if that sort of ventures into more sadistic sounding territory, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I think it does. And I think we have to read these, these individual passages in light of, of the full counsel of God, too. And it's, it's, it's no accident, 2 Corinthians 5 tells us that, that he made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us. Yeah. And, and so I don't, I don't think God the Father gets his jollies by punishing the son. He, he punishes the son qua sin, not qua the son, if, if that makes sense.
Yeah. You, I think the irony, it's kind of a strange irony, is that sometimes when this has become a sort of flame war between the penal sub lovers and the penal sub haters, both extremes in that fight have started to say things that run afoul of the Trinitarian guardrails. Um, and so on one side, you have the anti-penal sub crowd saying things that clearly would contradict the doctrine of the Trinity when they try to articulate the doctrine. And then I think on the other extreme, and in a view that sometimes called the Christus odium view, the idea that the son became odious to the father and was the subject of the father's intense hatred, you know, that also starts to sound, um, similar to something that would run afoul of the doctrine of the Trinity. And also would, to be honest, it would also run afoul of kind of the reformed tradition folks like Calvin, who, who speaks of, you know, the cross and says that, you know, how could the Father, you know, hate the son? I mean, it's, you know, he's very cautious to preserve the Trinitarian basis of the faith, even in speaking of what we would call penal substitution. And that's one of the things I've appreciated about going back through the tradition and seeing how people like Calvin and others, um, were, were very nuanced in certain ways when they, when they spoke about that.
Yeah. Can you, so two questions, two more questions, maybe on penal substitution. Sure. Number one, can you just, um, and I'll give you both the questions and you can decide which way to order, answer them, but can you just tell us what, why did you put this as the heart? Yeah, what do you mean by that? And then second, do you think, I feel like I've heard people say penal substitution is kind of the latecomer, you know, the early church, all, all they talked about was Christus Victor, but right after the Reformation, penal substitution kind of took pride of place. So, a kind of twofold question there, is it the newcomer on the scene, is it? And then what do you mean by heart?
One of the statements that was made, this makes more sense in a British context where the buildings are a little bit older, is that penal substitution isn't even as old as the pews in some of our churches, um, which in America, that makes less sense, but, um, I think that's clearly false. And so when I start in on the heart, the penal substitution and vicarious judgment section of the book, I start with the patristics and, um, the patristic period and just sort of walk through and try to identify, um, church fathers who affirmed mere penal substitution. Right. Not all of them did, but clearly a good number of them did. And they may not necessarily use the exact same language as somebody in the 1900s used or somebody in the, uh, 16th century used, but the, that's why I think it's important to define the, the mere penal sub, um, components, because it's clearly there. You can see it more broadly.
Meaning, yes, yeah, the tradition. Yes. See, you don't want to force the church fathers to use the exact same language, you know, that we would use in a, in a 21st century English-speaking context, you know, um, but it is there in the patristic tradition. And so that was, that was one of your questions. I walked through and, and, and to be honest, it's, it's also not there in a, in a few of the patristic sources where it is sometimes claimed to be. You know, there's been a, I think sometimes there's been a, a little bit of an overzealous archaeology of penal substitution to sort of find it beneath every, beneath every rock in the tradition, you know?
Right. And I really, I really enjoyed throughout the book, you just seem to be very fair with the sources that you interact with, both ancient and modern. Um, that was one of, I think, my my favorite parts about the book, just to see you interact really charitably, um, with some of these sources. So I thought that was great, how you just very in a balanced way, interacted.
Thanks. Thanks. And then will you, you tell me what you mean by heart? I think a lot of people, especially maybe from the more, I mean, defensive hierarchy side, would say, well, what does that mean? Like, yeah, what does the heart mean? Why would you put it there? And, and what, in what sense are you placing? Is that just code for most important?
Yeah, right. Well, you know, it's, it's always dangerous to read your, like, Amazon review views or your, you know, internet, internet comment boxes or anything. And I did come across one, you know, another scholar had posted about the book very positively, and and someone had commented, you know, well, I was going to read this, but then I saw that he made penal substitution the heart, and then I decided I'll, you know, I want nothing to do with that. Um, and so it has received maybe pushback or or whatever, because, you know, those who don't like penal sub would think that that implies that it's somehow most important. And, and that's not what I mean. I, I chose the heart for a couple of reasons. The first reason is, it's the blood-sending organ of the body, and perhaps more than any other model of atonement, penal substitution is associated with blood, the blood of Christ. And the second reason is that the heart is at the center, in some ways. And I think if you're going to see how these pieces mutually support one another, penal substitution is located in kind of a middle position between the foundation, the feet of recapitulation, and the head, the result of Christus Victor. I think penal substitution only makes sense when it's placed on the foundation or the feet of of recapitulation, and the result of penal substitution is divine triumph. So there was a kind of linearity to the logic, feet, heart, and then head. And other scholars have pointed this out too, whether it's Hans Boersma or Jeremy Treat or Michael Bird, or even going back to to Owen and others, you know, that it's not just penal substitution and Christus Victor, it's Christus Victor by way of penal substitution. Um, and so the reason I chose heart is it's in that kind of middle position in the Mosaic. And I, the subtitle for that section is, uh, "Heart: Penal Substitution, The Hub, But Not the Whole of the Atonement."
Yeah, I think that language is really helpful.
Yeah, it is. That's good.
Have you gotten any pushback from, uh, penal substitution people at all on this?
Not, not that I know of. Um, okay. Just wait till after this podcast comes out. I'm just kidding. I'll be waiting for the for the letters to come. There you go. Yeah, I think certainly there's a camp where if you highlight any other aspect of the atonement besides penal substitution, it is perceived as an attack against penal substitution. Um, and so I'm sure that those folks won't like, um, the book. But, uh, I, I don't agree with that position. I, I don't understand why magnifying the different aspects of Christ's saving work necessarily detracts from the other aspects. I don't, I don't think that makes sense. Because I, I think it's important to say that what, what we're discussing as models here are not, how would you say it, explicit biblical teachings? Right, right. What, what we're doing is, we're taking biblical language and biblical teaching and, and we're trying to, to, to compile it together into, okay, this is what took place at Calvary, right? Yeah. And, and the Bible has a lot to say about what took place there. It's not quite as much on how it actually took place, right? Yeah. And that's kind of, in some ways, what, what systematic theology is, you know, it's, it's trying to say, what would it look like, like if we affirmed the whole of scripture, and we also looked at the tradition, and, and realized that we weren't the first ones on the scene here, you know, to try to interpret scripture, then how could we come up with some articulations that that make sense in light of those various realities?
Yeah. Well, maybe we could move to, um, Christus Victor, sure, um, as the, the head, right? You describe it as the head, and maybe just give us a brief explanation of why you put that as the head.
Yeah, it's the head, I think, in some ways, because it's the telos of atonement. It's the result of, uh, Christ's recapitulative identity, his recapitulative fidelity, and his judgment-bearing, uh, death, penal substitution. It's the outflow of that. It's the glorious, uh, result of that. And so head seemed like an appropriate metaphor. It's just a metaphor. You could think of other ones that might be just as good or better. Um, it's the crowned head, so to speak, of the Mosaic. Um, but one of the things I, I talk about in that section, the third section, Christus Victor, is how it's a staged triumph. And I don't mean staged in the sense that it's fake or phony, but in the sense that it has stages. There's kind of an already and a not yet to Christ's victory. And so it's the crowned head of the Mosaic, um, and there's an aspect in which it's a crown of thorns in one sense, and, and a crown of triumph in another.
So how did that, how do you think that triumph came about? What, what did the triumph look like?
Yeah, well, I think it's not limited to just one scene in this, in the Bible, you know, I don't think it's limited to just resurrection or just ascension. Um, at some level, I'm, I'm just reading a, a book right now on, on the descent, you know, and in which we just interviewed him. Yeah. And I'm totally, um, I'm embarrassingly blanking out now. Is it Matt Emerson? Matt? Yeah. And I'll send you my book on the ascent, which is coming out soon.
Ah, awesome. Yeah, it'll change your life. It'll change your life.
So don't say anything bad about the ascension.
I won't. I won't. Or else I will get very angry.
Well, I won't say anything. I'm not, not going to say anything at all. Now, just don't say anything at all. But what I was going to say is, with with Matt's book and with yours, I think you can, you can locate, uh, triumph in each of those chapters in the story. And I think there's also a triumph yet to come in the eschaton, you know, and so it's, it's a, when I say staged triumph, it's, I, I think it's important to recognize those different stages as aspects of the unfolding victory of God, um, over the forces of evil.
Yeah. And I think that's important to
To consider just how you have framed this, because I think so. And, and I'm speaking as, like, a pro-penal substitution guy, just so there's no mistake about this. But, but, but some within our tribe think that, like, like the whole intent of the cross was so that, that Jesus gets to spend eternity with Todd or Patrick, right? And it's, man, that is so far from the truth. It's, it's like, I, I, in, in my economy, that's just a blessed add-on to this entire thing that is Christ's incredible victory over sin and the principalities and the powers, you know? Um, yeah.
So anyway, can you speak more to that idea though of trickery or deception? Like, why is that such an important concept to get in this victory, um, of Christ over the powers of darkness? Yeah, I talk about that, uh, in a similar fashion I did with penal sub. I, I go through the patristic tradition, and it was definitely a theme in the fathers that there was an element of trickery or duping the devil, or in some cases, even, this sounds terrible, divine deception.
And so, straight out, straight out, yes. I mean, it's there in the, in the, the fathers. You even get it, you know, Luther has, has a version of it. Um, and then it's sort of been, there's been an attempt to sort of revive it in, in the 20th and 21st century. Um, and so I, I needed to deal with it. In a lot of cases, it's just been dismissed. I mean, it's just been dismissed as grotesque and absurd and not befitting the, the God of Truth to talk about there being an element of, say, deception.
And so what I land on is, I don't say that that God deceived anybody. Um, but I think it's totally Orthodox to, um, to be open to the idea that Satan was self-deceived, you know, as a non-omniscient evil entity, right? Evil, I talk about this in the section, evil, I think, is inherently irrational. And the one thing that makes no sense to an inveterate liar is the truth. The one thing that makes no sense to a psychopath is sacrificial love. And so I do think it's coherent, uh, in Orthodox, to be open to the idea that Satan is self-deceived. Um, there is something that the principalities and powers do not understand about, um, the cross and about Christ. And so I think it is possible to kind of reclaim a certain version of the duping of the devil motif without sacrificing a proper view of God as the God of Truth, um, and without venturing into more maybe unbiblical or grotesque, uh, construes of it.
Like, well, what about, what about the Deep Magic written before time began? You guys into magic out there in Portland? No, I just think that's, while we're doing these things, the witch in the wardrobe, he really likes Harry Potter. And, uh, I was quoting C.S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis, did he not write Harry Potter? I thought he did. Okay, maybe not. The Ghost Rider I had said earlier. I, I had said earlier that that the first part of the book and the fourth part where you looked at recapitulation and moral influence were, were really intriguing to me. And one of the reasons was that you kind of saved Abelard a little bit. Yeah, you, you kind of. And I teach church history, but I got to confess, I have not read a whole lot of Abelard, and I certainly have not read Abelard's commentaries to see what he had to say about Romans. Yeah. Um, and you, you made the case that he wasn't a strong denier of penal substitution. No, he actually affirms it. Um, and that, you know, Abelard is a, I think the problem is nobody reads Abelard. You know, that's, that's the thing. They read the one proof text, um, oftentimes mistranslated, and in some cases intentionally mistranslated. Oh my. Taken out of context. And because we need a kind of, you know, an exemplar for exemplarism. And so Abelard gets trotted out with his proof text. Um, but when you actually read him, um, he may have had many faults as a, as a person, and, yeah, but it is not the fault of exclusive exemplarism where he only thought that, um, you know, basically it was just Jesus sets this nice example for us, and we decide that we're going to follow that example, and that's that's a ton, you know. Um, that's the version of Abelard that's been set out there, but it's, it's not what you find when you actually read him. Yeah.
So the, this, the moral influence would be what we'd call a more subjective theory of the atonement, uh, that that it has some sort of power and influence over me. And it, in, in my reading, moral influence and the subjective theories are, are, are difficult to wrap our arms around because they don't make any sense by themselves. What's that? That's right. Yeah. My hands around. That's right. That's right. Because, because on their own, they don't make sense. How, how is Christ dying, and, and if that's all it is, it would be needlessly, how is that inspiring to me? Yeah. Nevertheless, the scriptures speak of the subjective power of the atonement all over the New Testament. Yeah.
Well, you know, there have been lots of people who've died for others, you know, some of them in incredibly brave and sacrificial ways. Um, and I suppose there could be a sense in which that compels people to live differently, to live better, you know, what I mean? The example of sacrificial love. But what I think is important with moral influence is to speak about why, um, Christ's example is different and more powerful than just the example of someone choosing to die for another person or, or to die for a cause. To die for a cause. Yeah. And, you know, so a couple of ways it's different is, well, it's different, first of all, because it's connected to these other pieces that we've been talking about already. It's not just an example. And, um, and so that's, that's important. You know, James Denny, I think, was a famous Scottish preacher and has what he calls the bright and pure analogy where he talks about, you know, if somebody, if I'm sitting on the pier sunbathing, I don't know if they have those in Portland. But, and somebody rushes past, jumps off the pier and drowns in the water, and, and before he goes under, he says, I'm doing this because I love you. Right? We might say lots of stuff about that guy. We might say he's crazy. Um, but it's not an example I'm gonna follow. And it's potentially a really manipulative form of love to sort of self-harm, yeah, you know, to show somebody else that you love them. Um, but, but then he talks about how, well, it'd be quite different though, if I was the one drowning and somebody jumped in and saved me, and in the process, they went down. You know, that's a very different example of sacrificial love. Um, and it's closer, you know, analogies are always tricky, but it's closer than, sure, than the first analogy. Um, yes, it, to, to what we see in, in the atonement.
Another way I think moral influence really needs to be complemented is by emphasizing the role of the Spirit. Um, and so I, I speak about kind of a Spirit-driven or a Spirit-empowered view of moral influence because it's not this sort of, um, Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, um, idea that we can somehow just by our own strength or pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and go follow Jesus, you know. Um, I think the Spirit is the one who enables, um, the, the transformation. It's the fruit of the Spirit, after all, in our lives where we start to look more like Jesus and to follow his example. So those are just a couple points on, on kind of where moral influence fits.
Do you think there's a question that arises for this one too? How much of a model of atonement this is? Could some people say, say this is just an implication or something around that or an offshoot of atonement? Yeah, yeah. What, what do you think about that?
Well, I mean, I do think I've thought about that more since the book has come out. And I, I think sometimes it matters which word we use. We've been using the word atonement a lot, right? But if we shift and speak about reconciliation, then it starts to become easier to see how there is an element of practice in the reconciliation. We're, you know, we've been reconciled. Now, Paul says, be reconciled. Then he goes on and says, be agents of reconciliation, you know. Um, and so atonement, maybe starts to make moral influence just if we just use that word, that English word, um, it maybe makes moral influence sound like just an add-on, you know, an appendix. Which, that could have been a body part, I guess. Yeah, you could have. I just thought about that right now. Could have been the appendix. Um, but I think I like the hands better in the sense that there is a beckoning, yeah, in the work of Christ. He is beckoning us to follow by the power of the Spirit. And there's a restraining. And so I talk about the beckoning hand and the restraining hand. He's also waving off these sinful, prideful, violent impulses. Um, and both of those motions are important, important if we're going to be agents of reconciliation. Nice.
Well, excellent. Hey, Josh, we are, we are running real short on time here. So again, I, I just want to say thank you for for coming on and and writing such an excellent book for us. And, uh, it's, it's been a real pleasure talking with you today. Yeah. Well, Patrick and Todd, thanks for having me. And I hope we can meet up sometime in in person. Thanks for, thanks for giving me some time.
Hey, this is Todd. We have received a lot of good feedback on this podcast. We have also received some questions. You have been emailing them to us, and we want to encourage you to consider that. That's right. So we plan on doing an episode where we just answer questions. So we'd love to have you send those things in to podcast@westernseminary.edu. Podcast singular at westernseminary.edu. And Todd, how can they send those questions?
Well, you can either type them out in the email, but what would be even better is if you created an audio file, uh, asking the question and send that to us. Right. We need to keep that at 20 seconds, and we'll play it. And so send in, we'd love to hear the audio clip of your voice. We'll play it, and then we'll answer the question as best we can. Thanks. Thanks for listening to Food Trucks in Babylon. The music you hear is provided by our friends at Humble Beast Records. If you like the show, please leave us a review and feel free to subscribe. To learn more about Western Seminary, visit us at westernseminary.edu.