Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) - the beginning of a journey

My understanding of the cross and Jesus' place on it comes down to something like this:

• Jesus, the Christ, died on the cross in the place of sinners – as a substitute for them.

• On the cross Jesus took upon Himself our sins and endured the separation and punishment (the penal bit) that was ours.

• And the shedding of Jesus’ blood and His death pays the price of our sin – and cancels its debt.

• Thus man and God are reconciled and the relationship is restored (atonement making amend, restoring relationship) in this one atoning act.

Now this is great, news and pretty simple to understand, or so you might think, but in fact this is a most contentious topic!

In and around there are so many areas of disagreement and much debate (so any peace Jesus brought can immediately be tossed in the bin!). I’m going to try to see what safe passage through the rocks, sirens and storms might be found. I will undoubtedly (as some will tell me) get it wrong, but hey ho, wouldn’t be fun if I didn’t would it? I have been told by some that I adopt a classic PSA stance whilst others tell me that I need to adopt exactly that whilst more still tell me I'm  *!*!**  (well, shouldn’t swear, should we? So we’ll merely pass that one by)!

My understanding is that sin causes separation because, to quote that great theologian and engineer, Montgomery Scott (Star Trek), ‘You can’t mix matter and anti-matter!’ Indeed, as even the Gnostics realised, God is all good and man is corrupt and flawed and because of this the two had to have a degree of separation or else – kaboom!  So this is where we found ourselves separated and without any hope until Jesus decides to get down there and sort stuff out.

Now this is an important issue for I believe Jesus came as man because He saw the need and decided to do what was needed rather than found Himself merely following orders from the Father (with whom He [and the Holy Spirit] are equal) because if He didn’t then those who beat their breasts and scream about ‘cosmic child abuse’ might just have a point. So this is something we need to visit on our journey (Sent/Went).

Within this issue we come to the sticky issues of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘wrath’ because some would have it that in Jesus death on the cross ‘satisfied God’s wrath’ – now this is an area that causes some real angst because regarding ‘wrath’ and ‘God’ I have to say that I don't see God's wrath being aimed at, or poured out, on Jesus and with regard to sin have also to point you to Scotty once mor. But this does indeed highlight another issues for investigation (God/Wrath).

Some will point us to a quote from Hebrews 9.22 which tells us that:
‘without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.’

So Jesus is sacrificed for us to atone (pay) for our sins – handy that because this fits well with the Passover and stuff we derive from there. (Pascal Lamb/Shedding of Blood).

God wants to forgive but, as some would have it, He isn’t big enough to do so without the debt caused by sin and the rift being mended – So He holds His breath until it’s sorted (and He can you know). If we are not careful we can make God just a little petty here and yet it also makes Him pretty consistent too (and I like consistent) – but it’s a consideration we need to have had and resolved I reckons (petty/legalistic/loving).

All in all as I struggle with this (and believe me, I will struggle) there is the tension between the accountant and lawyer God and the loving and compassionate God to be dealt with. Cold and calculating versus warm inclusive – Not going to be easy is it?

It will not be a quick journey because I’m going to have to read and think (aaargh) and pray (phew!) and get into all that sort of stuff that makes my head hurt before we reach a conclusion that some/may/all* will disagree with. But it will be an honest journey and if on the way it causes you pain, frustration or something else – I apologise for being unapologetic.

Pax

ps. here's a little something to start the journey:

* delete as applicable

The view from the cross

On the cross, Jesus (the Christ) shows us what the love of humanity looks like.

It is not, as Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek would have it:
'The Christ showing us what the hatred of one's father looks like.'

And yet in the same breath it is, of course, almost exactly that because it shows God's hatred of the sinful condition, the condition of sin itself - but not the one in whom sin resides. Žižek is almost there for he finds almost all the right words but gets 'one's' and 'The' confused and when this error is corrected provides us with something of extreme value and worth.

For it is The Father's hatred (of sin and its effect) that brings Jesus to that place (the cross) and yes, there is in the crucifixion a satisfaction, some remedy, to be found with regard to the separation and detestation of God towards sin. (Something which we might perhaps contend that the cross does indeed satisfy.)

That Jesus is separated from the Father is without doubt for He has taken upon Himself, and become for us, sin itself in the most unacceptable and unapproachable of manners. And we, in accepting this and His one atoning act, become as one with the Father - no longer abhorrent or separated from Him (The Father) but one with Him.

The act of Jesus on the cross transposes me (you) with Him and in this we don't find rejection of the Son but recognition of His sacrificing of Himself and in doing so experiencing that separation that was ours first hand. The final words of desolation as the distance between God and sin become so obvious and, as God experiences what it is like to lose Himself in its (sin's) noise and no longer hear Himself love, make the cross an even more terrible place than perhaps I have ever imagined. The intellectual knowledge of our separation from our position becomes made real in the God made man, experiential and awful.

Listening to some pontificating over the words from a Christian song, 'til on the cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied,' I found myself wondering about their words: Their protestations that 'God is love - not anger'.

Through them I found myself returning to the thought that although God is indeed love, He must be also able to hate; for if God can only 'do' love then His love is hollow and (sorry God) worthless!

I hear some (spluttering on their morning brew and splurging fragments of toast everywhere) protest with, 'But God is love!' Yes He is, but only because He chooses to be! For God's love to have any meaning then that love has to be a choice made between love and hate - and as God experiences anger (wrath) He too experiences (and is) peace and joy.  After all, in John 3.16 we learn that God becomes man to redeem the world and offer eternal life, reconciliation to Himself, through the offering of Himself - learning at the end of that same chapter (John 3.36):

'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.'

God's wrath is not aimed on them but at them. 'What's the difference?' I hear some mutter, 'They are still in God's crosshairs!' And yes they are - because the satisfaction of that wrath, the remedy that is the cross, has not been applied - even though it be but a fingertip away. It's like an oncologist aiming a beam of radiation at a person with the intention of missing them and hitting the cancer; a sniper taking out the person with the RPG and missing the child nearby (God doesn't use drones and neither should we -a subject for another day perhaps?).

There is no collateral damage with God - only accurate. precision, sniping!

And that execution of God's wrath and the destruction of sin is found in the cross - where God shows us what  His love of humanity (and of Himself in the Son) looks like and what it does.

Accept Jesus, the Christ, and the life He gave to give and taking up the cross (and all that means)  and the wrath is removed, recognition of the precision tactics that are the cross in the battle again the one who is the father of all lies and condemnation.

simples innit?