As I mentioned in converting to Catholicism, I'm in the process of reading more theological works with an attempt to better understand my own beliefs and the beliefs of my wife. I've lately been on a soteriology kick.
I am bemused by the many attempts to identify the "one" Christian soteriological method. Very few of these theories are mutually exclusive. There is infinite richness to Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and everlasting reign; and there is facets of meaning in every (orthodox) soteriology. For instance, I believe in:
- Imputed righteousness, with substitutional aspects. Relevant hymns: "How deep the Father’s love for us" (it was my sin that held him there, until it was accomplished), "Yet not I but Christ Through Christ in Me" (The future sure, the price it has been paid. For Jesus bled and suffered for my pardon), "In Christ Alone" (The wrath of God was satisfied)
- Christ as ransom. Relevant hymns: "In Christ Alone" (1) (Light of the world by darkness slain), "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" (Ransom captive Israel)
- Christ as the perfect Israel, recapitulating Israel but perfectly, in whom all the nations of the world may be blessed (representative rather than substitutionary). Relevant hymn: "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" (2) (O come, O Branch of Jesse’s stem, unto your own and rescue them. From depths of hell your people save, and give them victory o’er the grave. O come, O Key of David, come and open wide our heavenly home. Make safe for us the heavenward road and bar the way to death's abode).
- Christ as the Passover Lamb, providing himself as the feast that lets us commune with the Triune God and yet live. Relevant hymn: "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silent" (Lord of Lords, In human vesture, In the body and the blood; He will give to all the faithful, His own self for heavenly food.)
Andrew Rillera's "Lamb of the Free" is one such recent example of a "new" perspective that intends to dispense with the "common" ("popular" as well as "low") soteriology of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Rillera seeks to correct the belief that Levitical sacrifices were substitutes for the peoples’ sins. This "incorrect" belief is what has (allegedly) lead to the proliferation of belief in PSA. Yet while Rillera brings plausible scholarship to the Levitical sacrificial system (I, a layman, am not an expert on the nuances there), I think his resulting conclusion on the soteriological import of Christ’s death is not adequately supported and ultimately incorrect (indeed, I think it heterodox). Rillera, unfortunately, also writes with some condescension, using epitaphs like "wrong-headed" and "debunked". Having recently finished Khaled Anatolios's excellent "Deification through the Cross", who also posits an alternative soteriology (and one that I believe is orthodox) but is much more charitable in his contrasting with alternative soteriological theories, this meanness is jarring.
And yet there is good work in this book. Rillera, I believe, is an Old Testament (OT) scholar, and feels more comfortable in the Pentateuch than in the New Testament (NT). The first half of the book provides his perspective on the Levitical sacrifices, and I don’t see any real issue with his description or the rationale behind them, outside of some circular logic (eg, page 91 where he assumes the conclusion). His major points are:
- Very few, if any, Levitical sacrifices were made to atone for moral sin
- Blood mattered more than death.
- Sacrifice is limited, and cannot atone for moral impurity
- Only exile or death can purge “the land” of moral impurity.
- PSA is not a natural extension or consummation of the Levitical sacrificial system.
I can buy most of these points (though Hebrews 5 implies that sin sacrifices had paramount importance in a priest's duties). However, Rillera makes a leap of logic when he then concludes that PSA isn’t supported in the Bible. Romans 3 states that God displayed Christ publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. Romans 5 says that Christ died for us (though it stops short of claiming he died in our place), and it is clear that we are justified through Christ’s blood which saves us from God’s wrath. Isaiah 53 says that the suffering Servant "was wounded for our transgressions, the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed...the LORD [YHWH] has laid on him the iniquity of us all"; with clear substitutionary implications (3). Colossians 2 states that Christ "canceled out the certificate of debt....having nailed it to the cross". I'd be willing to say that there is no substitutionary death implied in the Bible but that the blood is the means of substitution. Rillera myopically calls out substitutionary death as if that is the only possible substitutionary aspect. He also characterizes PSA as substitution for death, and in the book’s conclusion says that the greatest danger in believing PSA is that it implies we don't have to follow Christ to the cross. But that is not what substitution means: indeed, we will all die and we are all called to take up our crosses. What we are now freed from is the consequences and penalty of our sin. (4)
While Rillera's OT arguments point to sacrificial atonement for ritual (but not moral) impurity, the NT forces him to acknowledge the moral atoning nature of the sacrificial element in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. But he argues that this is not the core part of the Gospel (the "good news") but is a subtle symbol linking back to the OT sacrifices. In Rillera's view, the Last Supper is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and inauguration of the new covenant, not a sin/atoning sacrifice. (Again, 1st Corinthians 5 and Rillera's own Anglican Communion Liturgy have a different perspective). As Rillera walks through 1 John and Hebrews (210 - 240), Rillera is forced to admit that Jesus’ non-Passover activities were also a sacrifice. While he initially states that "on behalf of sins" does not mean that he was an atoning sacrifice (224), he does relent (page 225) and says that the Christ’s blood’s potency gives it an atoning aspect despite the Levitical sacrifices not being morally atoning (a key point of his argument during the first half of the book).
Rillera, despite being arm-twisted by the NT texts into acknowledging the atoning nature of the blood, does not appear to believe there is anything directly salvific in Jesus' death. The only reason for death is that it is required for the resurrection, which is the "proof" of Christ’s identify as the agent of moral and ritual purification (165-166). Rillera does say that Jesus' death is "soteriologically unique" (274), but solely due to its temporal precedence. Putting aside questions of substitution and sacrifice, the NT heavily leans on Christ’s death as the means of our salvation (5). Some example passages:
- Colossians 1:20 "Having made peace through the blood of His cross"
- Colossians 1:22 "Reconciled you through death"
- Romans 5:10 "Reconciled through the death of his Son"
- 1 Corinthians 11:26-27. "As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, your proclaim the Lord’s death...whoever eats or drinks...in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."
While not desiring to attribute atoning or salvific import to Christ's death, Rillera doesn’t offer an alternative for the means of salvation. Rillera points to Christ as the "agent" of both ritual and moral purification without describing the mechanism. There seem to be three options that are consistent with the rest of Rillera's thesis.
- Christus Victor. There are certainly hints at Christ as victorious over death (eg on page 180) but the ransom component Rillera explicitly denies (203, 205).
- Vicarious (6). Rillera does state that Jesus lives a perfect representative life and his death is a "murder" as the ultimate moral sin which requires the temple to be destroyed to "atone" or "purge" the sin on the land. There is a "double participation" (240) where Jesus participates in humanity, and humanity participates in Christ's death and sacrifice. There is a "solidarity" with humanity (255). This isn’t perfectly aligned with the Vicarious soteriology, but at least rhymes with it.
- No salvific mechanism at all in the cross and resurrection. Rillera does say that God can forgive out of his own desire, which would mean there is no necessity for the cross other than as a ritual and as a proof of Jesus’ agency as the "forgiving one". This would seem to open the door to universal salvation, which Rillera hints at in his discussion of 1 John (214), though he more explicitly goes after the "Limited Atonement" of TULIP.
Outside of my theological concerns, Rillera introduces his book with culture-war fodder: that believing in PSA leads to authoritarianism, hierarchy, and support of the death penalty. Granting that these things are, in fact, bad, this by itself isn’t an argument for or against PSA. This odd and off-putting opening salvo is trivially refuted on two fronts:
- Historical: the countries that were the first to promote liberty and freedom as "us moderns" understand those terms were exactly those countries that were the strongholds of Reformed and Puritan theology, the leading adherents of PSA.
- Levitical: it doesn’t take an academic to see that outside of the detailed descriptions of the various sacrifices, Leviticus spends its time on how to correctly construct hierarchies and enact the death penalty.
I was disappointed by this book. I was hoping for a thoughtful book I could wrestle with even as a disagreed with the conclusion. Instead, the tone is brash and severe, the NT support in particular is unsatisfying, and he doesn't offer a clear alternative. I sense that he is searching for evidence for his pet theory, rather that believing the plain language of the Bible. And the soteriological implications of his pet theory he leaves to the side, perhaps due to its heterodox nature.
(1) Yes, you could do a whole soteriological study from "In Christ Alone"
(2) Yes, you could also do a whole soteriological study from "O Come, O Come, Immanuel"
(3) Rillera does talk about Isaiah 53 but only to say that the NT doesn’t consider Isaiah 53 to be about sacrifices. He does not attempt to cover the substitutionary aspects of Isaiah 53.
(4) There are myriad other verses. Hebrews 5:1 on the OT Sacrifices for Sin, Hebrews 7:27 on Christ as an offering that atones for Sin, Hebrews 9 12-14 on how purification can atone for sins, 9:26 again having Christ as Sacrifice, Hebrews 10:10 on Christ as a sanctifying offering. Rillera intentionally does not engage with "all" the verses that can be marshaled against him, seeming to treat them all as falling under a broader set of categories that he can dismiss. Yet if a plain reading of essentially the entire NT needs to be explained away, it does suggest that the original argument may have some flaws. To his credit, Rillera does wrestle with the Hebrews passages, and does seem to agree that there is some atoning aspect to Christ as sacrifice (even if there is no salvific aspect).
(5) The resurrection is necessary (and in fact, not at all surprising) given Jesus' deity. If the incarnation is true (God as Man), then the shock is God dying, not his coming back to life.
(6) Vicarious is perhaps my least favorite soteriological theory, positing that the Incarnation was sufficient for our forgiveness due to God now "understanding" us. Where Christ’s death plays into this is left as an exercise for the reader.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Last thread I recommended Cur Deus Homo, which has elements of substitution but I really liked how it laid it out.
I also like Vicarious in some formulations, not yours. It's not about God "understanding us" in a way He couldn't before. It's that God set out to the depths of evil and suffering, went to the furthest reaches of Not-God, to find us and love us from the full range of God and Not-God. He descended into Hell. We recite that in the Apostles Creed but do we appreciate what that means? There is no where we can run that He has not traversed.
Melito of Sardis' On Pascha is a lovely meditation as well, short enough to read in one sitting. I suspect it was read on Good Friday in the 2nd century. It seems to hint at a Typological soteriology, which is interesting.
Ultimately, it is a mystery. I don't mean mystery in the secular sense, where there is one answer and if you find it you can stop looking. I mean in the Christian sense, mystery is something like Jesus' parables. Something that you need to keep coming back to, something that always has more to understand, something you can meditate on for all eternity and still find more to appreciate. Trying to pin it to a wall like a butterfly will kill it.
For example, I have heard protestant pastors explain Penal Substitution by saying things like "God damned Jesus on the cross," "The Father hated Jesus on the cross," etc. Those are all theologically fraught statements. Jesus's willingness to sacrifice Himself was pleasing to God.
More options
Context Copy link
An interesting writeup! I've thought a lot about this topic, so I'll offer a few thoughts. Fair warning though, I don't consider myself a Christian; I'm commenting on the story of the New Testament as I would on the story of the Lord of the Rings - with love, care, and respect, and a belief that it expresses grand and important truths, but with no belief in the literal truth of the story.
First, I think this kind of intellectual approach kinda missess the point, a bit like interpreting LotR as an analogy for WW2. You can still get some decent insights that way, but the story is trying to subtly and indirectly describe deep truths and the proper perspective on life, not provide a logically rigorous system of explanation. A bit like this short clip talking about grace, but with the same overarching point: https://youtube.com/shorts/Xt1j62wnWfo
Second, I once asked a smart (Catholic) priest on soteriological theory, and he said something along the lines of "You know, a lot of the older vicarous redemption stuff is a bit outdated, trying to explain it using analogies people understood at the time, but basically salvation is doctrinally a Mystery - not a secret we don't know but theoretically could, but a mystery categorically beyond our understanding. The main point, the "good news", is that all is resolved and fixed, the how and what is not something we need to fully understand." I like this answer better than any of the official theories.
As for my own opinion, the embodiment of God as a man in Jesus seems to me the main bit: the sacrifice being God himself going through everything we do, the doubts, the betrayals, the suffering, the small and great sorrows and indignities of life - and still remaining fully God (but also man), thus building a bridge between us and God and healing the breach of the Original Sin. By this we are doubly redeemed - first by getting an ideal to live by in Jesus, showing us that this life CAN be lived divinely and is thus worth living, and second by God becoming "one of us", deigning to go through everything we do, and thus no longer being jsut a distant aloof Lord but a brother and a friend.
In this view, we are like a small kid crying in frustration at our failing efforts to build a castle out of Legos, and then our older brother comes in and says "it's not THAT hard, look" and builds a structure of incredible (to our child's eyes) beauty and grace, redeeming our pitiful efforts both by showing us that it can be done and that our struggle to do well is not in vain, and by deiging to play with us at our level - our older brother does not NEED to play Legos with us, but the fact that he still wants to makes the Legos into something grander, not just a pointless struggle of a limited creature but something the one we look up to most also considereds worth doing, and his act of doing so brings the two of us closer.
More options
Context Copy link
I was raised on PSA language but with a lot of handwaving about the details, which I assume is commonplace in non-Calvinist Protestant denominations. I remember being told in Sunday School that no, Satan was not responsible for Christ's death.
As someone who holds to the ransom theory, who do you think the ransom was paid to? I do wonder to what extent a ransom-without-explicit-ransomer paradigm differs exactly from PSA-trinitarianism when it comes down to brass tax, but it sounds like you know much more about it.
From what I can tell there are a number of variations to ransom theory. The "Christus Victor" version says it was paid to the devil, who had rightful "ownership" of humanity due to our sin. Jesus was exchanged (not substituted!) for humanity in Gethsemene. The devil now had "rights" over Jesus, and brutally killed him. But by killing the sinless Jesus, who did not deserve death, the devil overstepped his "mandate" and Jesus arose victorious over death, sin, and the devil. I think some of the versions of this theory go too far (eg, the idea that God "tricked" the devil, which if I recall even some Church Fathers believed), but I like that there is a meaningful role for the devil in this narrative. In PSA the devil is an afterthought; the only participants are humanity and God.
This seems to be the model that CS Lewis favored. See TLTWATW.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm somewhat bemused by the strength of conviction displayed in opponents of PSA.
My theory is that it's because of a distaste towards the Levitical system in general. As modern Christians, we don't need to make offerings for our sins, so the whole concept seems alien to us. Never mind that it's the system God chose to give to Israel - it just feels wrong! Why couldn't God choose to forgive sins without all this slaughtering of innocent animals? Why does blood have to have this significance? It seems barbaric to modern sensibilities. So if some people have this distaste towards the idea of blood sacrifice, it seems reasonable to me that such distaste would apply also to theories of Jesus as a blood sacrifice, even if the text of Scripture seems to treat his death as such. I wouldn't call this a theory of mind necessarily, but perhaps a vibe check?
Anyway, interesting write-up! Like you, I don't have a strong opinion about which theories of soteriology are correct - I'm just putting my trust in Jesus and looking forward to finding out how it all works one day. Congrats on your conversion!
More options
Context Copy link