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 like to speculate which soteriology / atonement theory induces the greatest change in the believer. If I had to choose between the exact original soteriological schema (hypothetically) and a later innovation that is more fruitful, I would gladly pick the more fruitful one, simply because I only care about the effects. (Consider: if the early Christians had the optimal answer to every question, why did one hundred heretical sects pop up and why did Arianism almost take over Christendom? In some ways we should rvtvrn, but maybe not in every way). So I'm willing to entertain newer theories, like those found in medieval affective devotional practices which inspire grief and guilt over visualizing the wounds of Christ, something we do not find before the Middle Ages. I think we can construe each theory as privileging a certain dimension to Christ which brings about a different positive impact on a Christian.
Exemplar and moral influence changes the worshipper insofar as they make Christ the Lord of all status, glory, and social value. Whether someone claims this is as irrelevant as whether a student makes the pledge of allegiance at school. The only substantive change comes from sincere feelings. If a person loves and honors someone and their way of life, they will effortlessly seek to copy him to share in the shadow of his glory, just as a kid begins to talk like his idol and wear the same clothes and do the same things. Christ Crucified is an especially beneficial aspirational image because it is the zenith of virtue and the synecdoche of Everything Christ. Like it says at the end of Ecclesiastes, "the words of the wise are like goads, like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings given by one Shepherd", the moral influence of the cross extends beyond merely the Passion and becomes the moral influence of the One being crucified: he has been "lifted up to draw all men to Himself", Wisdom firmly fixed in place, like Moses lifting up the serpentine staff to show men the way of salvation & overcoming. (Consider Quintillian: "when we crucify criminals the most frequented roads are chosen, where the greatest number of people can look and be seized by this fear. For every punishment has less to do with the offence than with the example." And there are other mnemonic reasons for why the cross was chosen as the instrument of instruments: the image tracks with the ancient art of memorability found in rhetorica ad Herennium; humans are semi-arboreal and interested in trees; etc.) This alone is a perfectly worthy grounds of atonement, and Christ Himself makes clear on two different occasions in Luke that the follower must imitate the cross daily, and that in order to do this (to obtain this spiritual disposition) Christ must be placed above the cares of all family and possessions (like a girl in love who resents being on vacation with her own family because it separates her from even the texts of her great beloved, or like me being away from WoW as a 12yo). How many children would leave their families and possessions to follow Mr Beast for the chance of glory after suffering his trials? But this is juvenile; “when I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”
Ransom / redemption is a fundamentally different angle. It is approximately: someone else went through a maximally horrible experience to save me, even though my own evil was responsible for said experience. This is very prosocial because it activates our sense of obligation and gratitude that another person has provided (this cognition would generalize to other encounters in civilization). This leads to the doing of Christ’s commands out of the a greatest possible thanks, like someone in a debtor’s prison being released due to the buyout of the very person we failed to pay. We now want to serve with thanks, and the idea of not serving would result in guilt: continuing in sin would be like humiliating and crucifying Christ again, forgetting the greatest favor that anyone has ever received in the history of the world. Think how guilty you would feel is someone vouched for you to a great employer and secured you a new position and you failed to show up; Christ interceded and intercedes on your behalf to the Father. Or think how guilty you would feel if you got an organ donation but continued ingesting poisons afterward: Christ is the doctor who donated all of His own blood for you, so how can you show up to the follow-up appointment and tell him you’ve continued damaging your spiritual health?
There is, I think, a dramatic-tragic dimension to the original gospels which reappears in medieval affective piety, and which is deeply moving. The story of the most peaceful and rightful Lord being brutally tortured by His own people is powerful even excluding other soteriologies. Via compassion for Christ’s imagined social/emotional suffering (imagining the emotions of His mother or imagining how He felt), our cold and stony heart is torn asunder and we are given a new, more sensitive heart. This happens all the time with run of the mill dramas affecting us deeply even though we know they aren’t true, so how much more will this affect us if we know it’s true? But this is completely outside of modern churches, you’ll really only find it online with any tastefulness. This can be combined with the other theories. The medievals would go further and say, like, “my individual sin resulted in this specific scar on your back”.
In regards to the atonement as the fulfillment of the temple sacrifices, we can ask: what was the psychological effect on the part of the offerer? I’ve already written too much so I won’t go in depth, but: the scapegoat is believed to carry away the sins simply as placebo, almost as guided visualization, you feel that your sin has departed because the goat or the bird departs far away. I don’t believe the scapegoat is anything beyond this. The animal offering is more: it’s a costly signal: you are giving away something expensive; it enhances salience: this real animal has died because of sin, and God is so important that the center of my nation has many animal sacrifices a day, which enhances fear of continuing to sin; and lastly it’s highly reinforcing: both the olfactory scent of animals burning and the shared meal of a sacrifice are reinforcing, desirable, appetitive. You love God more because you had a shared meal with a pleasing aroma. The original Eucharist was a shared meal and IMO it was a mistake to do away with that.
There are some more aspects worth dwelling on. One of the earliest accounts uses the word “nourishing” in reference to the blood of Christ, and in antiquity blood was believed to convey the power and life source of an organism. It’s probable that the early Christians were placebo-maxxing the Eucharist by believing that the real blood being ingested has conferred real spiritual benefits. This… would have worked. Placebos work, and all of the various aspects of a powerful placebo are found in the Eucharist.
Anyway, I’m heterodox so feel free to ignore all of that, but I’m heterodox for a reason because modern Christianity is broken per every statistic on it. You’re not bringing in anyone or retaining very many people, and the lifestyle of those you retain are questionable, so we should figure out what works.
I'd like to hear more of your ideas on this. I'm in leadership - and potentially taking over someday - at a small Calvary Chapel (we're pretty heterodox as denominations go). What do you think we could be doing better, as a church body or as Christians generally?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link