In our Come Follow Me New Testament Reading for the last week of October, there is a section on Philemon 1:17-21. In these verses, Paul offers to cover Onesimus’ debts that might be owed to Philemon. In one section of this Come Follow Me topic, there are a series of questions that are asked to prod a conversation. You can see the questions in the screenshot below.

I was visiting relatives while on a work trip, and one of their children was guiding the conversation. She asked the second question, “How is this similar to what the Savior willingly did for us?”

I was half paying attention, but this question sparked my interest. It felt like the question was a bit of stretch for the writers of Come Follow Me. I then said to their family, “I don’t think this idea of penal substitution is scriptural.” - which created a bit of conversation.

First, I had to define penal substitution which theopedia.com explains as follows:

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

Then the parents started to google and found quotes from a few articles within other Christian blogs echoing what I had said.

• Ancient Faith blog post titled, “The Debt of Sin and the Sin of Debt”
• Patheos blog post titled, ‘Saved From God? 5 Problems With Penal Substitution Atonement Theory’
• Patheos blog post titled, ‘A Thoroughly Biblical Argument Against Penal Substitutionary Atonement’

I think it caught them a little off guard. I know I hadn’t studied it deeply but that there were extremes to the penal substitution theory that didn’t sit well with me do to my readings in openness theology. I think it surpised them because we were all raised on Elder Packer’s Mediator analogy. Elder Boyd K. Packer’s incredible storytelling ability entrenched this penal substitution theory forever in the minds of Latter-day Saints (see the video below)¹.

I remember watching this video as a teenager in seminary. It was entertaining and spiritually motivating to me, but it didn’t connect well with me. Here are the questions that I have from this video

1. What does it mean when we imagine our lives weighed on the scales of justice?
2. Is God the Father the creditor in the movie? Should we view him as a creditor?
3. Does God give us things that are such significant debts that we should be warned not to do it?
4. Where are God the Father and Jesus as the young man is living his life? Does he have no relationship with them beyond the debt and payments?
5. Is mercy only one-sided?
6. Does Christ only interact with us when we sin?
7. Does God the Father only march to a justice drum beat? Where is His love?
8. Is Christ there only to become a nicer creditor?
9. Does Christ’s mediation just transfer our debt payments to another creditor?

Here are a few quotes from the video and Elder Packer’s talk that strongly imply the penal substitution theory of the atonement.

Christ Talking: If I pay your debt will you accept me as your creditor? Then you will pay your debt to me and I will set the terms.

…

Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit. One day the account will be closed, a settlement demanded. However casually we may view it now, when that day comes and the foreclosure is imminent, we will look around in restless agony for someone, anyone, to help us.

…

The extension of mercy will not be automatic. It will be through covenant with Him. It will be on His terms, His generous terms, which include, as an absolute essential, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.

…

Our transgressions are all added to our account, and one day if it is not properly settled, each of us, like Belshazzar of Babylon, will be weighed in the balance and found wanting.

I don’t see God the Father as a creditor. I don’t see Christ’s atonement as a simple transfer of payments. I don’t see sins as a transaction with God that accrues on a credit account. I would imagine that Elder Packer didn’t only see Christ and God the Father as creditors as well. However, this mediator parable and video are the lasting echos that many LDS hear when they think about the atonement.

Then, what is the alternative to the penal substitution view of the atonement? I am not sure that we have to throw out the entire picture, but I do think that we need to include many other metaphors in our picturing of the atonement and our relationship with the Godhead. Concerning the penal substitution theory, I want to tackle two concepts that get very messy when pushed for understanding.

• What is Christ mediating, and what is a mediator?
• How do we handle the debt metaphors that are often used in scripture and is God the creditor?

Then what is Christ mediating?

There are only 10 uses of the word ‘mediator’ in our cannon. Most of the verses do not define what or how Christ is mediating. They just state it as a fact. 1 Timothy 2:5 does state that Christ mediates between God and men.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

However, D&C 107:19, D&C 76:69, Hebrews 8:6, and Hebrews 12:24 all express that He is the mediator of the ’new covenant’.

To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

These verses are insightful in that the ’new covenant’ is tasked as the item that Christ must mediate between man and God the Father. Jeremiah 31:31-34 seems to define this new covenant that will come to Isreal (and us) in the future.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. … for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This metaphor of writing the law in our hearts and inward parts for us to understand that we are bound to God pushes me to see Christ mediating our relationship with God, not a debt payment program that we have with God. He is mediating our divine relationship. He has come to show us how to love and be loved. The new covenant is the writing on our hearts of the loving laws that define this relationship. His mediation is His love and example, not his ability to become a debt collection company by buying debts from God.

What about the images of debt in the New Testament?

First things first, Christ is not a debt collector. In Jeremiah 31:34, which we just read above, we see that Christ forgives our debts He does not transfer them to his ledger. He absolves them! We are set free from the obligation and consequences of guilt. Let’s look at a few verses that are used to argue the God debtor view that comes from the penal substitution theory.

Isaiah 53:4-5 seems to imply that the debt we accrue is to sin, not God. God, the father, is not collecting debts. At best, He is sending His Son to pay the debtor of sin so that we can return. Notice how Isaiah says what we thought God was punishing Him and then corrects that thought with a “but”. We thought God the Father had smitten and afflicted Jesus ,but Jesus wasn’t wounded or bruised by God. Our sins wounded Christ.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Mark 10:45 looks to be the most substantial support for the debt view of the atonement and strong support for the development of the penal substitution theory. It seems like scholars are somewhat divided on this verse². However, I don’t think the verse or its context is arguing that Christ is the ransom payment to a debtor God. The Greek word for ransom in this verse is primarily focused on a sacrifice by which expiation is effected. Expiation is the act of making amends for guilt or wrongdoing. He offered Himself as a sacrifice to man (the Romans killed Jesus, not God the Father) to help them see that with Him, they can make amends with God. He had to exemplify the resurrection or the power that God has over the loss of the physical body. He offered His immortal mortal life as the ransom that all fallen men may have the chance to have immortality in the flesh through His resurrection.

For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Where do we go from here?

The new covenant is the relationship. Christ is mediating the relationship that we can have with the Godhead through covenant. As a part of the Godhead, Christ knows the wording and structure of a perfect loving relationship. His mediation provides a way for us to understand the love language of God. We can then choose to write this language of the law on our hearts. His ransomed mortal life (one that he freely chose to lay down) opens the path for all of us to receive a physical body and to join with God in the power that comes from resurrection in Christ.

The Director/Theater view of the atonement

In God’s Theatre: A Theology of Providence, Timothy Gorringe shares a powerful analogy of Christ’s atonement. He compares Christ to a director of a play. Under this director view, we can still owe a debt to the director, and he can be the mediator. Here are a few key quotes that drive the idea.

To think of God in terms of the theatre director, then, is to think of one whose job it is to evoke talents, skills and capabilities the creature (who remains the ‘actor’) did not know it had. [pg 82]

It gives God a supremely active and creative role, leading and being alongside, … but does not destroy the autonomy of the creature. It is creative without being manipulative. [pg 82]

‘If you just let a play speak, it may not make a sound. If what you want is for the play to be heard, then you must conjure its sound from it. This demands many deliberate actions…’ [pg 79]

All the director can do is illuminate the plan and demand that the actors find their own inner resources. [pg 78]

In the director view, God is involved in the day-to-day through His Son. Christ is there every moment helping us evoke talents and capabilities that we did not recognize in ourselves. He atoned to help us find purpose not to put us all in debt to Him. He has given us gifts and provided a way to absolve any obligations we may have to other Gods. He is not interested in mortgage payments He is interested in us finding our “own inner resources” through His love.

• principles
• openness
• commentary
• video
• sin