Friday, September 6, 2019

Joshua M. McNall vs. the claim Irenaeus of Lyons Taught Penal Substitution


Refuting the thesis Irenaeus of Lyons taught penal substation, instead, opting for a model he refers to as “nonpenal propitiation,” Joshua M. McNall wrote:

The suggestion hinges upon the fact that Irenaeus occasionally spoke of Christ as “propitiating” (propitians) the Father on our behalf. Irenaeus wrote,

By transgressing [God’s] commandment we became his enemies. And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through his incarnation, having become “the mediator between God and men”; propitiating for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling our disobedience by his own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. (Against Heresies 5.17.1).

A similar claim appears in book 4 of Against Heresies. Here, he wrote that Jesus performed “the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men . . . Himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation” (4.8.2).

Both passages clearly speak of propitiation, and as the twentieth century demonstrated, that concept would become a flash point. The English word and its Latin precursor (propitiation) refer to the placation, assuaging, removal, or turning aside of divine wrath, often through a sacrifice or gift. Hence the notion is important for those who claim that Jesus bore the weight of divine wrath in our place. Yet while the meaning of the Latin word is clear enough, scholars are divided over whether propitiation is a proper rendering of the Hebrew and Greek words (most notably kipper and hilastērion) often used the describe atonement . . . But what of Irenaeus? On the surface, his use of propitiation appears to affirm a central contention of Morris and his interpretive kin. When one speaks of expiation, the object is usually sin, while the object of propitiation is God or divine wrath. In the above quotations, Irenaeus clearly views God the Father as the object of the action. Thus Jesus’s high priestly work is viewed as “propitiating for us the Father against whom we had sinned.” Likewise, the thing requiring propitiation is the transgression by which we “became [God’s] enemies” (Against Heresies 5.17.1). The point, therefore, is not merely that Irenaeus spoke of propitiation but that he made God the object because of our prior status as his enemies.

Yet there is an added wrinkle. While Irenaeus wrote originally in Greek, the above passages exist today (as with most of his work) in a later Latin translation. Hence one might claim that the propitiation language reflects the mind of Irenaeus’s translator more than his own. Perhaps partly because of this, John Lawson acknowledges that the use of propitians in the above passages only appear to teach “Divine Appeasement.” The reasons given stem from the fact that (1) Irenaeus did not normally speak of propitiation and (2) the original Greek word may be given a biblical sense in which appeasement is not present. On the latter point, Dodd’s shadow lingers in the background (John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus [London: Epworth, 1948], 193).

In response to Lawson, two points should be made. First, it is certainly accurate to say that Irenaeus did not usually speak of atonement as propitiation. Still, the fact that someone usually doesn’t do something is no grounds for claiming that they never do it. Jesus usually walked on land, but this is no proof that he never walked on water. Second, it is also true that the meaning of hilastērion is sometimes more akin to expiation than propitiation. But if this is so for Irenaeus, then it seems singularly odd that both passages from Against Heresies identify the Father as the one who is propitiated. If Lawson were correct, then Irenaeus should have spoken of sin as the object of this action—but Irenaeus did not. In the end, both objections to the conception of propitiation in Irenaeus (as the turning away of divine wrath) seem unconvincing.

Of course, none of this means that Irenaeus espoused a view of penal substitution in his references to divine propitiation. Key parts of the doctrine are either missing or muted in these texts (Against Heresies 4.8.2; 5.17.1). Most notably, the theme of punishment is entirely absent. And while cultic imagery is present, Irenaeus pictured Jesus not as the sacrificial victim that absorbs divine wrath but as “the high priest,” who propitiates God by “cleansing lepers” and “healing the sick” (Against Heresies 4.8.2). When Christ’s death is mentioned, it is not viewed as a propitiatory sacrifice but as the death of the high priest, which according to the law was the event that signaled to certain exiled persons that they might return from their cities of refuge without fear of punishment (Num 35:25) (Against Heresies 4.8.2). A crucial distinction should therefore be noted: the presence of sacrificial themes (including propitiation) in an author do not necessarily reflect belief in penal substitution, and interpreters should avoid the folly of finding penal substitution in every reference to priests and sacrifices.

Elsewhere, however, Irenaeus did speak of Christ redeeming us “by his blood” (Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, 72, 78, 88) just as he wrote that Jesus “gave himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity” (Against Heresies 5.1.1). [Alongside his theory of recapitulation where] Irenaeus even viewed as Christ summing up the human death which was the divinely sanctioned penalty for sin “so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor should the handiwork of God go to destruction” (Against Heresies 5.23.2). These statements come much closer to penal substitutionary themes, even while the emphasis is more representative than explicitly substitutionary. On Irenaeus, the verdict is therefore a “yes” on propitiation and vicarious judgment, but a “no” on an explicit account of penal substation. (Joshua M. McNall, The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ’s Work [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2019], 109-110, 111-13, final comment in square brackets added for clarification, emphasis in bold added)