Seyoon Kim on the Penal Substitution
Seyoon Kim, an Associate Dean for the Korean Doctor of Ministry Program and Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote an excellent essay defending the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. He correctly observes,
The spirit of the Enlightenment has led many liberal theologians to reject the penal substitutionary understanding of Christ’s atonement. Recently some feminists and “postcolonial” writers have heightened their criticism of it, and some fainthearted evangelicals have joined them. These objectors argue that the conceptions of God’s wrath and its propitiation are unworthy of our biblical God and even immoral.Futhermore, he comments on various theories pertaining to the doctrine of the atonement and its effects,
Those who dislike the penal substitutionary atonement theory typically point to the multiple atonement theories in the NT … Some Anglophone writers use the concept of “atonement” loosely so as to include justification, reconciliation, redemption, etc. as well as expiation/propitiation, and claim these as representing the multiple theories … However, justification, reconciliation, and redemption represent not separate atonement theories, but the fruits of the atonement: on the basis of Christ’s expiatory/propitiatory sacrifice sinners are justified (acquitted of sins and restored to the right relationship to God), reconciled to God, and redeemed from the evil forces (sin, the flesh, the devil, and death), when they appropriate atonement by faith. Therefore these divine actions are not unrelated to the atonement understood in terms of penal substitution.
Kim also argues for
Taking God’s “righteousness” in the juridical sense, the traditional interpretation sees Paul explaining Christ’s death as the meeting of God’s mercy and justice. Being truly merciful, God willed to forgive sinners and restore them to himself. Being truly righteous, however, he could only do that without compromising his righteousness. Therefore he offered Christ as a “propitiatory sacrifice” (ηιλαστεξριον), so that by vicariously bearing the full weight of God’s wrath which sinners deserved, Christ might avert God’s wrath from them. This “redemptive act” of God had the purpose of “proving” (endeixis) his righteousness as it could be called into question because of his “passing over” (paresis) sins committed until then. Furthermore, it had the purpose of “proving” (endeixis) God’s righteousness in this new aeon of salvation, so that God might be righteous even in justifying sinners who have faith in Jesus.
Finally, he notes that Paul explains the atonement more clearly in the following passages (Rom 3:24–26; 4:25; 8:3–4; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13 ) and comments on the two types of interpretations concerning this important issue. Kim is not silent on the issue but draws a plausible conclusion.
Taking God’s “righteousness” in the juridical sense, the traditional interpretation sees Paul explaining Christ’s death as the meeting of God’s mercy and justice. Being truly merciful, God willed to forgive sinners and restore them to himself. Being truly righteous, however, he could only do that without compromising his righteousness. Therefore he offered Christ as a “propitiatory sacrifice” (ηιλαστεξριον), so that by vicariously bearing the full weight of God’s wrath which sinners deserved, Christ might avert God’s wrath from them. This “redemptive act” of God had the purpose of “proving” (endeixis) his righteousness as it could be called into question because of his “passing over” (paresis) sins committed until then. Furthermore, it had the purpose of “proving” (endeixis) God’s righteousness in this new aeon of salvation, so that God might be righteous even in justifying sinners who have faith in Jesus.1
A more recent interpretation understands God’s “righteousness” here as his covenant faithfulness—and therefore as a concept of salvation rather than judgment. It interprets the crucial term ηιλαστεξριον as “expiatory sacrifice” (especially that of the Day of Atonement) that covers or washes away the sins of God’s people, as well as taking the terms paresis and endeixis in the sense of “pardoning” and “showing,” respectively. In this view, Paul is saying that God has set forth Christ as an “expiatory sacrifice” to “show” his “righteousness” (covenant faithfulness) for his people that “pardons” their past sins and “justifies” anyone who believes in Jesus.2
It is now widely accepted that following the Old Testament (OT) usage, Paul understands “righteousness” fundamentally as a relational concept and “God’s righteousness” as his covenant faithfulness, rather than regarding them as basically forensic concepts according to the Greco-Roman usage. However, even in the OT, God’s righteousness seems to include in itself a forensic dimension of unleashing judgment upon sinners, albeit in order to restore the right order (cf. Isa 1:27–28; 5:16; 10:22).3 Even if, despite Romans 3:5–8, God’s righteousness in Romans 3:24–26 is to be seen exclusively as a concept of salvation in contrast to God’s wrath, the ηιλαστεξριον here cannot be read independently of the concept of God’s wrath, which is the dominant background of the context (Rom 1:18; 2:5–6; 3:5) and God’s saving act (“redemption,” v. 24) that is proclaimed here cannot be seen independently of Paul’s overwhelming sense of God’s last judgment, the redemption which Paul perceives as the ultimate salvation (Rom 2:1–16; 8:33–39; and some twenty more references in Paul’s letters).
Thus, while it is to be affirmed that out of his righteousness God set forth Christ as the eschatological ηιλαστεξριον to bring about forgiveness and restoration of sinners, Christ’s death as the ηιλαστεξριον had the function not just of washing away their sins but also of dealing with God’s wrath, i.e., averting it, and so “redeeming” them from God’s last judgment. Then, the dimension of propitiation in the ηιλαστεξριον cannot be ignored, and the penal category of understanding the atonement as set forth in our passage cannot be avoided.
Hence, what are the reasons for the Penal Category? According to Kim, "It was only natural that Jesus’ disciples recognized his death as the eschatological sacrifice of vicarious atonement when they witnessed his crucifixion and God’s resurrection of him, as the resurrection could only be seen as God’s confirmation and vindication of Jesus. In addition to Jesus’ own teaching, such as the “ransom” saying and the Eucharistic sayings, seen against the background of the institution of atonement in the OT, his actual death by crucifixion after trial and condemnation naturally led his disciples to understand his death in the category of penal substitution. Hence they came to formulate such kerygmatic formulae as Romans 3:24-25; 4:25; 8:3-4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galations 3:13; and so on."
Click here to read the full article The Atoning Death of Christ on the Cross By Seyoon Kim
Hungry for more? See the following texts-
The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance by Leon Morris
The Cross of Christ by John Stott
The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Paperback)by Thomas R. Schreiner, Gregory A. Boyd, Joel B. Green, and Bruce R. Reichenbach with James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy as editors
The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives : Essays in Honor of Roger R. Nicole by Charles E. Hill (Editor), Frank A. J. L. James (Editor), Roger R. Nicole (Editor)
Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, and John Piper
(Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts by Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker
The Atoning Death of Christ on the Cross By Seyoon Kim
Related Articles:
-
Photo Courtesy The State Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Morsi of Egypt A message from the... Read Full Story » -
Facing a likely loss in federal court, the Giles County School Board voted unanimously yesterday... Read Full Story » -
Jesus Christ images with Quotes are given above. We have added 16 wallpaper sized images of... Read Full Story » -
Last week, Pope William I, the Supreme Pontiff of the Church of Self Actualization revealed... Read Full Story » -
On the great Day of Pentecost, God chose 120 men and women to fill with the Holy Spirit and... Read Full Story »
Comments
