In his 1888
book critiquing the penal substitutionary theory of atonement, S.G. Burney wrote
the following in response to Reformed apologists and theologians and their
citing early Christian texts as support for a historical pedigree of this
theory:
Soteriology of the Apostolic
Fathers
It is generally admitted that the Christian
writers who immediately succeeded the apostles give no clear intimations that
they believed that Christ saves men by a penal death. They distinctly recognize him
as the Savior of men. They speak of his sufferings, his death, his
righteousness, etc. But no one claims that they teach with any precision that
Christ suffered the punishment of sin in the place of those for whom he died.
Yet it is persistently claimed that this doctrine was held by them. I will here
cite the principal passages in their writings that are relied upon in support
of this claim. These I take from the “History of Christian Doctrine,” by W.G.T.
Shedd, D.D., vol. II, p. 208, et seq.,
to which the reader is referred.
1. Polycarp, a pupil of John, says:
“Christ is our Savior; for through grace are
we righteous, not by works; for our sins
he has even taken death upon himself, has become the servant of us all, and
through death for us our hope, and the pledge of our righteousness. The
heaviest sin is unbelief in Christ; his blood will be demanded of unbelievers;
for to those to whom the death of Christ, which
obtains the forgiveness of sins, does not prove a ground of justification,
it proves a ground of condemnation . . . Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered himself
to be brought to death for our sins;
let us therefore without ceasing hold steadfastly to him who is our hope, and
the earnest of our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, ‘who bare our sins in our own body on the tree.’”
This seems to be the sum total of the proof
that Polycarp believed that Christ as a substitute died in the place of men in
such a sense as to bear their guilt and punishment and infallibly insure to
them eternal life. It is hardly necessary to say that there is not a solitary
word in the whole quotation that teaches or
even implies the doctrine.
Still it is easy to see how substitutionists
deceive themselves by such passages, viz.: if it is said that “Christ died for
us,” they assume that he died penally in our stead. They thus beg the whole
question by gratuitously assuming to be true what they are required to prove to
be true.
The language of this apostolic father, if
interpreted in the light of its own terms, can not be reconciled with the
substitutionary scheme. If the theory is true, how would Christ “become the
servant of all” or “the hop and pledge of righteousness to all?” or how could
his blood be demanded of unbelievers, since all for whom his blood was shed
necessarily believe? or how can his blood be demanded for those for whom it was
not shed? or how would his death be a ground of condemnation to those for whom
he did not die?
Much more might be said, but need not. All
Polycarp says is in harmony with a non-penal theory, but can not be reconciled
with the penal scheme. [How Christ bore sin will be explained in due time.]
2. The next witness called is Ignatius (†116). Dr. Shedd says:
“The
expiatory agency of Christ is explicitly
recognized by Ignatius. In one passage he speaks of Christ as the One who gave
himself to God, ‘an offering and
sacrifice for us.’ In another place he bids believers to stir themselves up to
duty ‘by the blood of God.’ In
another place he remarks that ‘if God had dealt with us according to our works
we should not now have had a being;’ but that now, under the gospel, we ‘have
peace through the flesh and blood and
passion of Jesus Christ.’”
These
quotations instead of proving penality actually disprove it. Offering and
sacrifice are incompatible with penality. I need not offer another word. They
can claim pertinency to the issue only on the assumption that Christ could not
suffer for us unless he suffered in our stead—the very point which requires
proof.
3.
The next witness quoted is Barnabas, companion of Paul. He says:
“The
Lord endured to deliver his body to death that we might be sanctified by the remission of sins which is by the
shedding of that blood.”
This
is every way as favorable to non-penality as to penality.
4.
Clement of Rome, a disciple of Paul, is next invoked in the interest of
substitution. His language is:
“His
(Christ’s) blood was given for us, poured out for our salvation; he gave by the will of God his body for
our body, his soul for our soul.”
It
is pure assumption to say that “for” is here intended for “instead of” . .
.That Clement did not hold the penal theory is fairly evinced by the fact that
he has much to say of Christ as a “high-priest.” No high-priest, or any other
priests, Jewish or pagan, ever bore the guilt and punishment of those for whom
they ministered. Substitution requires no priest. As a theory an executioner is all it needs . . . [on
the topic of the] Epistle to Diognetus:
“God
himself gave up his Son a ransom for us [huper
hēmōn], the holy for the unholy, the good for the evil, the just for the
unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For
what else could cover our sins but his righteousness? In whom was it possible
for us, the unholy and the ungodly, to be justified except the Son of God
alone? O sweet exchange! O wonderful operation! O unlooked for benefit! that the
sinfulness of many should be hidden in one, that the righteousness of one
should justify many ungodly.”
On
this extract I remark: (1) That it of itself teaches nothing distinctively as
to the nature of Christ’s suffering, whether they satisfied the claims of God
or Satan. If Irenaeus was consistent with himself he meant the latter.
(2) That it does teach is that men are saved by Christ’s righteousness, acquired by
satisfying the claims of Satan to whom he believed men owed some sort of
allegiance, just as a man imprisoned for debt is saved by the kindness of a
friend who pays the debt. Much more might be said in proof of this potion. But
this is not Anselmic substitution, with its invariable double imputation. (S.G. Burney, Atonement Soteriology: The Sacrificial, in
Contrast with the Penal, Substitutionary, and Merely Moral or Exemplary
Theories of Propitiation [Nashville: Cumberland Presbyterian Publishing
House, 1888], 24-27, 29-30; note that Burney believed that Irenaeus wrote the
Epistle to Diognetus)