The Smoking Gun of SAT

We have already shown that Substitutionary Atonement Theory isn’t necessary to believe in. Also we have shown that there isn’t a single atonement theory that discusses all the significant biblical issues and themes that are related to Jesus’ death. In this section, I want to be more direct. There are significant theological issues that are problematic with Substitutionary Atonement Theory (SAT) as it is presented by evangelicals today. These problems are not obvious, on the surface, but given some thought these problems actually limit God’s sovereignty, justice and His mercy.

I am going to bring up some serious issues. I am not saying that proponents of SAT can't possibly answer most of these problems. Nor am I saying that to hold to SAT is opposed to the truth of God. What I am pointing out is that SAT has some very difficult problems that need to be addressed. To simply deny these problems are there only perpetuates the weakness of SAT. In light of these problems, I determined that it is better to discover a more biblical form of atonement theory. However, another theologian might determine to retain SAT, but deal with these issues head on. You decide how you will deal with them:

SAT claims that everyone is born in sin
In the classic form of SAT, every person is born into sin, and thus punishment because of Adam’s sin. It is a sin nature that is passed on to every human being. Thus, each human is born headed toward hell. However, God’s word disagrees with this perspective. In Ezekiel 18 it clearly teaches that no one will be punished for the sins of one’s father, but only for his or her own sins. Paul also teaches in Romans 2:8-10 that God does not punish a person in accordance with their race or birth, but only according to their own deeds. Thus, it is possible, for one who is born to the wrong parents to live a life so righteous as to be pleasing to God (Romans 2:14-15). To call a person a sinner from birth is simply unbiblical.

SAT claims that God forgives after punishment
It says in Scripture again and again that God is merciful and forgiving, that forgiveness is a part of His nature. But SAT claims that in order for God to forgive in justice there must be an elaborate punishment and only after the punishment is God able to forgive. This claims that God is unable to forgive unless there is death. This also implies that there is a law of punishment that is greater than God’s forgiveness. Can God not forgive who He wills? If that is the case, then why have a sacrificial system that establishes a false punishment? Why is Jesus established as the scapegoat for all sin? Scripture is clear—God has authority to forgive those who He wills. Jesus’ death somehow helps humans receive God’s forgiveness, but it is not due to God’s inability to forgive. Rather, it must be about humans being made worthy to approach God.

SAT claims that God’s wrath can only be quenched by death
SAT has a strange notion of sin that is anti-intuitive. It claims that every sin is to be punished by death, without regard to what kind of sin it is. Certainly Paul claims that anyone who is under the law and disobeys it is cursed, thus worthy of death (Galatians 3:10). But Galatians and Habakkuk both claim that life can be gained by one who lives by faith, regardless of the law. But what about those not under the Mosaic law? Are they under the curse of death for a single sin of childish rebellion? What about a sin that is repented of? Rather, it seems that the kingdom of God is excluded to those who have a character of evil, especially unrepented evil whether one is in Jesus or not. But a single sin here or there can be repented of and forgiven. (I Cor. 6:9-10, Heb. 10:26-30; I John 8-10). God’s wrath is not so severe that eternal torture is the just penalty for each and every sin.

SAT seems to claim that God accepts human sacrifice
SAT is based on the idea that all OT sacrifices were temporary, a sign pointing to the perfect sacrifice which is Jesus. If sacrifice is substitutionary, then it would seem to indicate that sacrifice was imperfect until a completely innocent human being is sacrificed to appease all of God’s wrath on humanity. There are a number of theological problems with this. First, it seems to indicate that God, although declaring in the past that human sacrifice is unacceptable (Exodus 13), in reality, it was okay as long as the sacrifice was completely without sin. Hebrews 2:24 indicates that Jesus being a human was significant, and SAT implies that it is because God really desired a human sacrifice.

SAT claims that the Innocent can be punished for the guilty
Also, it is important that the sacrifice be innocent. For substitutionary atonement to take effect, a guiltless human being must be sacrificed to appease God’s wrath. Thus, instead of Jesus, could each family have a scapegoat human whom they could kill, which would be the perfect sacrifice for their sins? Of course not, this is wicked thinking. But why then is Jesus considered a perfect sacrifice for humanity’s sin, and him being a human and innocent. This brings a question about God’s justice in general: is it ever just for an innocent person to be punished for a guilty party? Certainly an innocent person can pay bail, but can they pay with their own jail time or their own execution? Is there a single court that would find it just to kill an innocent person in the place of a guilty one? Is God’s justice so separate from human justice that this makes sense? Is this the practice of a merciful God?

SAT claims that punishment is irrevocable
SAT has the idea of God that it doesn’t matter who is punished, only that punishment is meted out. The punishment must be done, death must be accomplished. But who dies isn’t so important. We can trade an innocent person for a guilty one. We can trade the Son of God for all humanity. All of that is insignificant. The important thing is that someone is punished and the punishment is torturous enough.

Again, all of this is opposed to Scripture. God is just, and He sees clearly all men. Thus, God punishes individuals for their sin, or, more specific, their character. Jesus’ death is not some magic or ritual. God rejected ritual sacrifice many times in the Old Testament (Psalm 51:16-17; Isaiah 1:11-17; Isa. 66:2-3; Jeremiah 6:19-20; Amos 5:21-28), saying that what He really wanted was a contrite heart and repentance. Jesus came declaring repentance, not a substitutionary sacrifice. Thus it is repentance that God seeks, not any sacrifice. Jesus, yes, was the perfect sacrifice, but not because of some ancient law or spiritual code. Rather it is because Jesus’ death and resurrection leads us to repentance. The only question is, how does it do that?

It is not fair to dash an atonement theory to the ground and to bring up such biblical precedent without having a theory to replace it with. In the next four sections, I will propose an atonement theory that will attempt to have a broader look at Scripture, and encompass all the biblical themes of the main three.