Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine

by Stephen Finlan

The origins of atonement are found in Paul's writings. Popular Christian theology has understood them to mean that God demanded a bloody victim to pay for human sin. In Problems with Atonement Stephen Finlan examines the Christian doctrine of atonement and current debates about it. He considers its biblical foundation in Pauline texts, the Old Testament background, and the theological questions under discussion about atonement. He provides ancient historical background and raises questions, such as whether the Incarnation must be understood through the lens of atonement. Chapters are Chapter 1: Sacrifice and Scapegoat," "Chapter 2: Paul's Use of Cultic Imagery," "Chapter 3: Atonement after Paul," "Chapter 4: Rationalizing the Atonement Doctrine," and "Chapter 5: The Incarnation." Stephen Finlan, PhD, is an adjunct professor of New Testament at Seton Hall University and Fordham University. He is the author of The Background and Content of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Society of Biblical Culture, 2004).

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Religion

152 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2005

Reviews

[Adam Tomlinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finlan's text started very engagingly, but ended sour for me. I appreciated the way in which Finlan began by discussing the implicit challenges that come from discussing the atonement. Primary among them, is that Paul seems to be (in fact is) mixing his metaphors to get at his point: salvation comes from Jesus. His advice that we need to read Paul's metaphorical use of things like sacrifice, scape-goat, and heroic death the same way we read Jesus' parables is critical, helpful, and insightfully challenging.

However, where I struggle with Finlan is his assertion that atonement is not a fundamental Christian belief--something he claims primarily by acknowledging that it is not unique to Christianity and can be found in numerous world religions. Finlan believes that the fundamental point of Christianity is the Incarnation (of which I agree) and that atonement was just a mythological, cultic, or societal metaphor to understand the God-Man. Rather than atonement being what God was "up to" in Jesus, God was primarily "up to" divinization, or capitulating the experience of humanity to Jesus. Unfortunately, he chooses to use the atonement theory of Irenaeus to then say that atonement is not what Christianity cares about. While I am in favor of a divinization/theosis/deification salvation theory, I do believe that atonement is part of that story.

Finlan asserts, "Whether or not one wishes to utilize the terminology of theosis, which is still a strange and threatening concept to many Western Christians, there are many ways to return to the concept of the Incarnation without investing all of its significance in the death and turning the life into nothing but a lengthy prologue." (123) Unfortunately, Finlan never returns to discuss the importance of the death and makes the same error he is critiquing in reverse. In his paradigm, the death of Christ left as an appendix to the story. I wish he would have done a more faithful job of discussing how the death and resurrection were just as important to Athanasius and Irenaeus as was the life. Let us not favor one part of the trinity of Jesus over the others.

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a pretty good read and I recommend all folks check it out who are interested in all the complications of espousing an atonement doctrine, especially substitutionary atonement (i.e., Jesus died for my sins in my place).
I enjoyed the work for the most part; but too often I felt that Finlan's theological convictions got in the way. He kept dichotomizing God (a loving, merciful God can't be angry and judgmental), tried to couch everything in affirmation of the Incarnation doctrine, and I think he employed each gospel for his points when appropriate but didn't adequately account for the differences within them. The best part of the book is probably his chapter on Paul's usage of cultic imagery, which was very informative.

[Kristopher Schmidt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read just for the discussion of the distinctions between various Pauline images and metaphors such as sacrifice, scapegoat, legal contract, etc. I think some of the arguments against substitutionary atonement were incomplete but overall the book was an interesting and informative read.

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine," by Stephen Finlan.


Quick summary: the incarnation is needed while the atonement isn't. Atonement here is seen as an overly objective volcano-God view where Jesus is thrown in to make the big guy a bit less miffed.


High points as I go: 


Paul is has a deft hand in mixing his ritual Atonement metaphors. He, along with much of the ANE (Ancient Near East), used appeasement, satisfaction of a penalty and sacrificial cleansing.


One motif common in Greek societies was the scapegoat. Properly this wasn't an offering but a sin-carrier, curse-bearer to physically remove sin from the town. This form of scapegoating (non-Girardian) is a magical in that it is a physical manipulation of a metaphysical reality. But this--scapegoat--is logically different than a sacrifice to appease appease Deity. Unless you're Paul and apply your deft hand as in Rm 8:3b "(scapegoat) likeness of sinful flesh...(sacrifice) as a purification offering...(legal) condemned sin in the flesh."


Another thing to keep in mind as we explore Atonement is the "for me," "for us" language found in Paul. This can be explained by it referring to sacrifice but also it can be explained by Maccabean and Hellenistic/Hellenic "noble death" language for martyrs.


Sacrifice in ANE history, crudely stated, was about feeding the gods. Some of the OT language can be said to point this way when we hear Yahweh speak about the smell of the sacrifice. Substitution sacrifice is seen early. There is Substitution in the passover: the lambs blood for the life of the first born. Sacrificial substitution is also heavy in Greek and Hindu myths.


In the OT we get to a place where sacrifice is secondary: "to obey is better than sacrifice," 1 Sam. 15:22. So sacrifice goes along a moral vector where Isreal, like their neighbors, has child sacrifice all the way to sacrifice being not as important as, for instance, obedience. "For I desire steadfast love not sacrifice," Hos. 6:6. Throwing penal substitution off is that in the OT the animal was sacrificed to get to the blood not to place a penalty on it.


Gal. 3:13--Paul uses ransom and redeem to speak to the way we were acquired. Both of these words speak to purchasing. This is hooked to a scapegoat image in "becoming a curse." Sacrifices are not described in scripture as accused while scapegoats are. Christ took the negative ritual scapegoat condition so we can have the positive judicial and social conditions. 


Rm. 6-8--Here Paul blends three metaphors with the judicial notion of condemnation, the technical term of purification sacrifice, and a scapegoat image.


"Christ is simultaneously the final scapegoat, the price of redemption, the long-promised Messiah, the reason for fostering of Abraham's descendants, and the leader who teaches the children to live by God's Spirt," p 50.


What does Paul's "for us" mean. Four possibilities:

To save us (martyr)

In our place (penal)

Paid our price (ransom)

As the new place of atonement (sacrificial/typological)

Took our curse (scapegoat)


These are metaphors Paul used freely because they worked with his audience, they resonated with the hearers. He used any tool he had.


In dealing with post Pauline thought we happen upon Origen and through his eyes we see the incarnation of Jesus as saving that leads to Theosis (divination) of the person. Here is where we can most see the thesis of "incarnation without atonement" at work. Athanasius was similar if not more in promoting the above thesis.


"Sacrifice as a way to win God's favor is manipulative. In both concept and feeling, this differs profoundly from what Jesus taught," p 108.


Did Jesus have to die? Finlan references the parable of the vineyard owner who sent his Son to collect. There was no intention of death to the Son on the part of the vineyard owner or the Son. The parable ends with the death of the Son. Jesus said his purpose was Is. 61 and that His later followers attributed Is. 53 to him. 


"The cross symbolizes two very common human evils: the cruelty of the state and the violent envy of Religious hierarchies," p 110.


Finlan pushes us to look once again at recirculation where God became man so that man may become God. Herein God takes flesh to live out every stage of human existence including death so that in resurrection he shows how we will be joined to the Divine. Not by magic that has God pleased by the death of His Son to let us off the hook.


This was such a good and thought provoking book which stressed the incarnation (a primary doctrine) over the atonement (a secondary doctrine). At 124 pp it is worth the read.


#ProblemsWithAtonement #StephenFinlan #Atonement #AtonementTheology #WorkOfChrist #Christology 

[Deborah Brunt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finlan explores Paul's metaphors of atonement. He discusses how these metaphors for exploring concepts of redemption and liberation were conflated and solidified as doctrine. He critiques modern atonement theologies and their focus on non-violence. Ultimately leading Finlan to reject atonement as a primary doctrine and elevating incarnation and theosis in it's place.
I love his approach and my only criticism is the brevity and lack of depth in his assertions.

[Ryan Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

A slim book that does some extraordinarily heavy lifting in contextualizing and critiquing atonement theories. Essential reading for those interested in understanding this often confounding and confusing doctrinal and moral quandary.

[Joseph Olivares · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall I found this little book to be very helpful. Finlan offers a convincing treatment of Paul's use of cultic imagery, in particular by pointing out the sacrifice and scapegoat rituals in the Old Testament were not the same thing, as they are often treated, and by demonstrating that cultic and forensic metaphors are only some of the metaphors Paul uses to communicate the significance of Christ's death, but are not to be taken literally, on their own, to the neglect of the other various metaphors Paul uses. Every metaphor Paul uses breaks down at a certain point, so that no one metaphor can or should be taken too far. Paul uses language of sacrifice, ransom, scapegoat, martyr, and more in order to give the full scope of what Christ's death accomplishes for us. I am reminded of Wright's comments elsewhere, regarding justification, that Paul never, "says it all" in one place.

Once Finlan goes beyond his strong points, though, I would have to agree with some of the previous reviewers and argue that he gets much weaker. I was excited and enthusiastic reading through the first half of the book, on cult and Paul's use of cultic imagery, but throughout the second half, where Finlan surveys how Paul has been and should be interpreted theologically, I found myself constantly frustrated. It really isn't that I altogether disagree with Finlan's conclusions. In fact, as an Orthodox Christian I am very enthusiastic at his attempt to recover Theosis in Western Christianity. What I found frustrating, however, was his tone as he discussed those he disagreed with, which repeatedly struck me as immature and unscholarly. Finlan offers powerful arguments against his opponents, so I don't quite grasp why he feels the need to constantly refer to them as "lesser minds," "primitive," "anti-Semitic," etc, rather than to simply let his arguments stand for themselves, which they certainly do. Indeed, Finlan's bitterness leads him to repeated jabs not only at penal substitution and other atonement theories, but transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth of Christ, and apparently even organized religion itself! Obviously, as an Orthodox Christian, I do not buy in to all of Finlan's conclusions. However, I do buy in to his primary thesis, which is that biblically the death of Christ should not be understood in terms of atonement, but in light of the Incarnation itself, which is the heart of the Christian faith, with the goal of Theosis, or the divinization of human nature, and which I found to be very convincing.

[Brett Salkeld]

This book deals with an immensely important topic but is largely disappointing. The best part of the book is an untangling of the various metaphors (cultic, diplomatic, judicial, social, familial) that Paul uses to explain Christ's work on the cross, but once Finlan gets into Christian history and theology his readings become superficial and his interpretations unconvincing. There are flashes of useful ideas, but they are too unsystematic to make the book a very useful read.

[Theresa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finlan makes a very good case that the Incarnation is the central doctrine of Christianity. Using Scripture and theology, he does away with the concept of atonement and the image of God that such a concept implies.