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 -
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!
Exactly, this is the sin of pride where I am the judge of God and if he did good or evil. It is the same distaste that many people have with Job and his testing and they do not take Gods answer in Job 38 where God says stuff like Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?, basically saying Job to trust his divine plan. No, people think that they can judge God.
By the way on related not I recently watch one discussion where somebody told that he cannot believe God who accepted slavery. Of course slavery is bad so God is bad. The opponent had a really good answer:
Back then the slavery was in fact a humane way to deal with your enemies. It was not unheard of for victorious tribes to genocide and wear skulls of all men and just kill boys and ugly women and infirm and old, and take young and beautiful girls as second or third wives. That was the norm, not slavery. There is always context in these things and the Bible was the text that was talking about how to behave toward slaves. It was Geneva Convention of its time.
Then you shouldn't be saying that God is good. I'm pretty sure that most people who say we "shouldn't judge" God say that God is good.
Because it's a pretty shitty answer. In modern times we've learned that just because someone is more capable than you doesn't automatically mean they're right. We'd never accept some rich guy lecturing us by saying "where were you when I built a city?" I wasn't anywhere when God built the Earth's foundation because I don't live long and don't have the ability to make natural structures. Neither of these things is a source of moral weakness.
Kill them on the spot, then offer their wives and children a choice of slavery or not (perhaps with exile if you think they would be a danger if kept around). If you are correct that they will starve, and that slavery is not so horrible that death is better, then they'll choose slavery. If you make the choice of slavery for them, that will lead to motivated reasoning, since you stand to benefit from getting slaves.
I can, because I do have completely different presuppositions. In fact it is inherent in the book of Job - by the structure of the argument Job accepts God as a benevolent omniscient allpowerful omnipresent being. The Bible talks about internal critique - how can you judge such a being from internal critique of this worldview. God is the yardstick of measurement, that is what was meant by the passage in Job. Without God there is no morality, everything is just subjective vibes exactly as you mentioned and anybody can judge anything as good or evil based on how they wake up that morning. God is not "just a rich guy", his existence presupposes a completely different paradigm.
According to who, you? Do you have a better answer to it? Where do you even derive good and evil from?
This is pure fallacy of popularity.
Exactly, that is why you don't know shit. For all you know you are living in one of multitudes of simulation theorem universes or whatnot. You were not everywhere and everytime, you are just guessing and stumbling around. You have no grounding to declare any universal claims.
You cannot talk about moral strength or weakness, because you did not ground morals at all. To be more precise, tell me why we should follow a Golden Rule as opposed to Eye for an Eye as opposed to Law of The Jungle or anything else. And I am not interested in some shitty sob story about babyeating aliens and another fallacy of popularity or whatnot, I mean it in form of some grounding of moral law that is more than "just because I prefer first to the third".
The better answer is to admit you don't have objective morality rather than writing a book that says "this is the objective truth, trust" and deriving secondhand moral authority from it, i.e. sparkling personal preference.
Why is that "a better answer"? What is your yardstick of better and why is that? Did you not get your morality from some shitty book or podcast or maybe from some stories of your family or maybe some sort of epiphany either drug induced or otherwise? Why is that better than anything else?
Knowing what you know and what you don't know correctly generally turns out better for you (in a very self-obvious way that you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand), if you haven't arrived to that conclusion in life I don't have anything else to tell you. By the time you're an adult, you're supposed to figure that one out rather than relying on "because I said so" from your parents.
Of course my sense of morality is based partly on meat desires and partly on post-Christian values instilled in childhood, I am not going to pretend that these are any less arbitrary than they are. Meanwhile your sense of morality is not going to become less arbitrary no matter how long you plug your ears and chant "I believe in Jesus Christ the King and Saviour".
You do not have any grounding for epistemology either. You do not know what is true or false no more than you know what is good or bad.
Declaring something "self-obvious" is not grounding or justification. What do you even mean by self-obvious. I have discussed with morons who thought that self-evident means "evident to myself", as opposed to a logical tautology such as "a triangle has three angles" - although I would argue that even that proposition is not self-evident in terms that you have to presuppose Euclidean geometry, existence of angles and numbers; all outside of the proposition which makes it not self evident but reliant on number of presuppositions. However you seem to be one of the former bunch. Guess what, what is obvious to you is completely alien to somebody else such as saying that of course my sense of morality is based partly on meat desires.
Yes, you are pretending. You literally talk about better and worse as if it has any meaning. You are a nihilist, your declaration of something being good has the same meaning as writing "safbdsnbdsv a,fmbdsf sdfd" - an equally arbitrary and meaningless statement. So stop appropriating moral language of Christianity that actually at least allows for objective morality to exist in its paradigm and presupposition. You do not have access to that by your own admission.
I have the same grounding as yours: my senses and reason. These are not perfect. You talk about a human not having the capacity to judge God, but your positive claims about God are no less hubristic than Job's attempt to judge God. Your claims of objective morality are unfounded.
Do not pretend that "knowing true things is good, believing in false things is bad" is something that wouldn't be obvious to you even without any religious indoctrination. You don't need God to not walk into traffic, assured that the traffic isn't there.
You would not be replying if what I was saying was random noise. You act as if informational value below 1 is the same as zero.
The kind of morality I am employing predates Christianity and operates closer to reality. Rich of you to forbid me to use maths because your version of maths allows division by zero.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link