The Atonement of Christ: Gratuitous Love or Divine Child Abuse?

Several years ago I made a personal resolution to read fewer books well rather than read more with only a cursory interest. One such book was John Stott’s masterful work, The Cross of Christ. Though Stott’s book (like many of my books) was relegated to that ever-growing number of “I really need to read this” books, I was strangely drawn to its cover—a simple, almost banal, rendering of the cross. I eventually found myself engrossed in every page of the book, causing the simple message of its cover to become inescapably apparent: There is nothing glamorous about the cross of Christ.

The force and significance of the cross, however, has been significantly anesthetized in our day. In many instances, it is nothing more than an accepted form of décor—adorning buildings, letterheads, and people’s necks. But, this was far from the case in the 1st century. The cross was reserved only for the worst of criminals. In fact, this belief was so prevalent that even Cicero, in one of his speeches, could condemn it as, “a most cruel and disgusting punishment.”[i]

With this understanding of the cross in mind, we can only wonder why such a symbol of evil, shame, and incredible rejection should hold such a prominent place in Christian thought and practice. Undoubtedly, the apostle Paul expected such a response from unbelievers when confronted with the importance of the cross to the Christian faith. Seeking to preach nothing but “Christ and him crucified,” (1 Cor 2:2) Paul quite candidly acknowledged that the message of the cross would be “folly to those who are perishing” (1 Cor 1:18).

So, why the centrality of the cross? Why not the centrality of the dove or manger or the stone which was rolled away from the tomb—all of which convey images of Christ and none of which carry with them the connotations of violence and utter disrepute as does the cross.[ii] According to Stott, only one explanation may be posited for why the cross became the Christian symbol—it was because “the centrality of the cross originated in the mind of Jesus himself.”[iii] From his birth, the cross cast its shadow over his head. As Stott notes, “His death was central to his mission.... What dominated his mind was not the living but the giving of his life.”[iv]

Not only is the symbol of the cross central to Christian discipleship, but the message behind the cross also remains central to the gospel itself. Someone has rightly said that a cross-less Christianity is a Christ-less Christianity.[v] Furthermore, I would argue that the traditional notion of penal substitutionary atonement—the substitutionary interposition of Jesus Christ to absorb in himself the wrath of God against our sin and secure a renewed access to God—is also crucial to a full-orbed understanding of Christ’s work. If the doctrine of the atonement is considered to be one of the central tenets of traditional Christianity (and it most certainly is), then, as retired Gordon-Conwell Seminary professor Roger Nicole puts it, substitution should be viewed as the “major linchpin,” without which the unified function of several other parts are no longer able to perform their own functions and float away in futility.[vi]

Today, however, we need look no farther than our churches to find widespread disgust and reticence over the profundity of the theory of penal substitution. Perhaps as never before, the notion of substitution, which inherently entails a form of retributive justice, is under severe attack by the postmodern community. The criticisms put forward by Joel Green and Mark Baker in their book, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts, serve as representative of the ubiquitous nature of such postmodern attacks. In their book, Green and Baker outline a handful of reasons why, in their opinion, one of the most pervasive metaphors for making sense of the cross is wholly inadequate. Perhaps most ‘in vogue’ among these reasons is the charge that a penal substitution model can be easily construed by persons in and outside the church as a form of divine child abuse and, therefore, should be made more accommodating to the 21st century Christian mind.[vii]

Postmoderns claim that penal substitution, which presupposes a divine economic exchange whereby the wrath of God is placated only after Christ’s death, espouses a system of justice more akin to the lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) than a gracious and loving God.[viii] Regarding this so-called “murderous exchange,” theologian Kevin Vanhoozer sums up the postmodern critique:

To interpret Jesus’ death within the framework of such an exchange economy is, in the eyes of postmodern critics, to legitimate a violent cycle of retaliation and retribution, all in the name of “justice.” Hence, the scandal of the cross is not metaphysical (how could God suffer and die?) but moral: Does God need to be placated before he can love and forgive? Is God party to an economy of retaliatory exchange?[ix]

Answers to such questions do not come easy. Nevertheless, a good place to begin is with a proper recognition of how the Bible depicts God’s righteousness and his jealousy.[x] First, we must realize that the very holiness of God is at stake. God’s holiness ensures his settled antagonism towards the sinful rebelliousness of his creatures. If this were not so, he would no longer be holy. [xi] Second, the key to comprehending how the wrath of God is not at odds with his love is to understand it first as a covenantal love. Upon doing this, we will no longer see God’s love as mere sentimental affection, but as a covenant commitment, a jealous love that leads to wrath when it is abused.[xii] In light of this, the tendency of Postmoderns and others to see the traditional view of the atonement as a capricious outburst of rage by the Father enacted upon his Son then becomes unfounded. In the words of John Calvin:

We do not admit that God was ever hostile with him, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, “in whom his soul delighted?” or how could Christ, by his intercession, appease the Father for others, if the Father were incensed against him? But we affirm, that he sustained the weight of the Divine severity; since, being “smitten and afflicted of God” (Is 53:4), he experienced from God all the tokens of wrath and vengeance.[xiii]

Finally, the supposed “immorality’ of the cross is further assuaged when we relate a biblical Christology to a biblical hermeneutic of the atonement.[xiv] Our substitute who died our death on the cross was neither Christ alone nor God alone, but God in Christ, who on that account was uniquely qualified to represent both God and man and to mediate between them.[xv] Karl Barth perhaps captures this concept best when he says, “The passion of Jesus Christ is the judgment of God, in which the Judge himself was the judged.”[xvi] This merciful truth, brothers and sisters, is the wisdom and glory of the cross.[xvii]

[i]John R. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986), 24.
[ii]Ibid., 21.
[iii]Ibid., 25.
[iv]Ibid., 17, 32.
[v]Wellum, “The Importance of the Cross in the New Testament,” 1.
[vi]Roger Nicole, “Postscript on Penal Substitution,” 445-47.
[vii]Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 27-32.
[viii]Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Atonement in Post Modernity: Guilt, Goats and Gifts,” 372.
[ix]Ibid., 372.
[x]John Frame, “The Doctrine of God,” 467.
[xi]Robert Letham, “The Work of Christ,” 141.
[xii]Frame, “The Doctrine of God,” 467.
[xiii]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion vol. 1, ed. by John T. McNeill, trans. and in. by Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 565.
[xiv]For a more thorough look at the different historical views, as well as, a more comprehensive review of the issues surrounding the current debate over the atonement, see Mark Dever’s recent Christianity Today article, “Nothing but the Blood.” Here, Dever shows that, contrary to the misguided notion that he was blindsided by the cross, Christ willingly offered his life up as a panacea for the cosmic repercussions of sin.
[xv]Stott, ”The Cross of Christ,” 156.
[xvi]Karl Barth, “Church Dogmatics,” 254.
[xvii]For a theologically sound and poetically fulfilling statement of penal substitutionary atonement put to music, see Bob Kauflin’s song, “The Glory of the Cross.”

Chris Bosson
Berachah Bible Church