The Angry God

Of the different classical theories of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Substitutionary or Penal theory has aroused much bitter theological controversy. The notion that an angry God should vent his wrath on His own sinless, beloved Son in order to forgive us our sins seems contrary to the Christian belief in a loving Heavenly Father. It is understandably felt to be an unjust and therefore immoral act.

This view finds support in Scripture - in Isaiah 53 we have a famous prophecy which though initially concerning some unknown servant of the Lord is usually applied to Jesus, he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities.......and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Peter in his first letter takes up the same theme with the words, He, Himself (Jesus) bore our sins in His body on the tree (the cross), so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness, by His wounds you have been healed. Clearly Christ not only brought blessing and healing by His ministry as such, but also achieved a mighty work of salvation by His passion and death upon the Cross. Perhaps the difficulty arises not so much, pragmatically in believing this, but in trying logically to explain what is after all the greatest mystery of the universe.

1. First of all, from the historical point of view of the Biblical record itself. In that history and especially in the Old Testament we find two interwoven strands of tradition with God's people, Israel.

• There is the tradition of sacrifice offered first in the moving tabernacle of the Israelites and later the permanent temple built in Jerusalem. The most important sacrifice was offered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement to appease God for the sins of the people.
• The second strand was that great tradition of the Law or Torah given by God to his people through Moses on Mount Sinai. This was the law to which God demanded the total obedience of his people and this tradition became fundamental for the nation after their return from exile and found its strongest expression in the worship and teaching of the local synagogue. The priests supervised the sacrifices in the temple whilst the scribes and Pharisees interpreted and administered the law.

2. Now the letter to the Hebrews in the NT cleverly weaves these two strands together by presenting Jesus in his atoning work as both the perfect sacrifice, wholly acceptable to God, and the perfect and pure High Priest who in complete obedience to God fulfils the demands of the Law - something which could never happen under the old Jewish dispensation of the OT. So the atonement for our sins is made possible by that what God's righteousness demands, his merciful love provides in the sacrifice of his Son upon the cross. All this is done on our behalf and as Paul writes in Romans chapter three, through this there is imputed to us a righteousness which is not by the Law but by faith. We are justified by grace through faith. The upshot of all this is that any meaningful theory of the Atonement must give due weight to the demand of God's righteousness on the one hand and the perfect sacrifice of his love on the other.

3. Another way of looking at the Atonement which implies the notion of substitution is the philosophical as opposed to the historical point of view. In the NT Christian teaching or theology is influenced by some of the presuppositions of Greek philosophy, particularly Plato. We meet something of this in the opening chapter of John's Gospel known as the Prologue. Here the eternal Christ is described as the creative Word of God. Amazingly we are told that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.....full of grace and truth. From a Platonic point of view where matter is regarded as both imperfect and evil and only the spiritual or heavenly is perfect and hence divine the notion of God taking upon himself human flesh would have been preposterous. Hence Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians that the Greeks regarded the Christian message as foolishness.  But if the Platonic view that there is in heaven the perfect counterpart of what exists on earth, is given a twist then it could be argued that a transaction of perfect, divine love in heaven could have the effect of transforming imperfect human lives on earth. A sort of substitution of the earthly with the heavenly, of the bad with the good and of the imperfect with the perfect. This idealistic view actually dispenses with the need for an actual historical crucifixion and is a view associated with the more esoteric brands of Islamic theology which denies that Jesus as one of God's prophets was ever actually crucified.

Finally we look at the Atonement from a moral point of view. This reflects the views of many 20th century liberal Christian thinkers and theologians who feel (and it is a strongly emotional reaction) that it is obscene that a God of love should punish His own sinless Son before he can forgive our human sins and weaknesses. It portrays the Almighty as a fierce vengeful being who perpetrates a supreme act of injustice in order to establish justice and peace in the earth. Certainly some of the language and imagery of the OT, especially the Psalms presents a picture of God that doesn't accord with the Heavenly Father as taught by Jesus. Yet on the other hand some of the strongest condemnation of human sinfulness and particularly hypocrisy falls from the lips of Jesus Himself - Matthew chapter 25 being a good example. Furthermore Biblical terms, like the wrath or anger of God refer to His judgement upon sin in all its forms. Dr. Leslie Weatherhead, a popular liberal preacher of the mid-20th century, felt that two-thirds of the OT was not fit for Christian consumption - his expurgated Bible would have been a very slim volume indeed.

Whatever our views of Christ's atoning work may be, the ingredients of judgement as well as grace must be present - God's righteousness and His sacrificial love go together and for many commentators some form of Substitutionary theory must be present. Looked at from a historical, theological and moral, as well as a Biblical point of view there must be present some Substitutionary element. However the last word must be that no human theory or form of words or proposition can do full justice to the supreme miracle that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Perhaps the poet rather that the systematic theologian should have the last word: