This topic is also discussed in my book Christianity 2.0, but there is more that can be said on the subject.
Christians who believe that Jesus’s death on the cross was necessary to make salvation possible have referred to this as penal substitutionary atonement. It is the idea that, by being crucified, Christ bore all the sins of mankind.
However, there are problems with this idea. First, why would it even be necessary? God is all-powerful. He could make salvation possible just by willing it. Why demand a sacrifice at all?
Second, if this idea is true, then it would mean that salvation is only possible through Christ which would invalidate every other religion in the world. Jesus spoke of a God who is all-loving. Would a loving God only create one path to heaven through one particular teacher? Would a loving God send a good person to hell simply because they are not a follower of Jesus? This seems unlikely if the description that Jesus gave of God is true.
One Bible verse that has been put forth as supporting penal substitutionary atonement is John 3:13:
Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man.
On the surface, this would seem to support the idea of the atonement. For if no one has ever gone to heaven, the notion that Jesus was now providing the only path to get there makes sense.
However, in the previous three verses (10-12), Jesus is talking about his authority which includes the validity of his teaching. Jesus says he is teaching what he knows firsthand.
We speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen. (verse 11)
Based on this, we can conclude that Jesus in verse 13 is speaking in an exaggerated manner, which he often does. He is not saying that no one has ever gone to heaven. Rather, he is saying that no earthly teacher can really teach you about the nature of heaven. Only Jesus can because he has actually been there. Remember that Jesus descended from heaven. Therefore, only his testimony is valid. Only he can tell us the truth about salvation.
The idea of the atonement is also contradicted by certain verses in the Bible:
God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. (Numbers 23:19)
For I am the Lord, I do not change. (Malachi 3:6)
These verses say that God doesn’t change his mind. But if penal substitutionary atonement is true, then it would mean that God did indeed change his mind. For to offer a new path to heaven, to change the rules in regards to how people go to heaven, God would in effect be changing his mind. Was anyone even able to go to heaven before Jesus came along? If the answer is no, it’s hard to believe. It’s hard to believe there was a time when there was no path to heaven, as this also goes against the idea of a loving God.
Wouldn’t this also mean that God abandoned the Jewish people? The Old Testament tells us that the Jews were God’s chosen people, but if the Atonement is true, it would mean that God switched his allegiance from the Jews to the Christians. Again, it would mean that He changed his mind.
Hopefully, you can see that the idea of penal substitutionary atonement does not so easily fit into the Bible narrative. It is mostly based on one thing Jesus said:
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. (John 14:6)
In Christianity 2.0, I argue that Jesus here is speaking in an exaggerated manner due to the nature of the language he spoke which was Aramaic which used a great deal of exaggeration in its expressions. (Lamsa, Idioms, 1985, pp. 76, 78-79) I also argue that Jesus in this passage is referring not just to himself but to any high-level teacher which would also include Buddha and Krishna. He was also referring to reaching the spiritual state of unconditional love (540 on the Map of Consciousness), not merely going to heaven. Muscle testing confirms this as true.
Another downside of penal substitutionary atonement is that it puts too much emphasis on the Crucifixion. It puts too much emphasis on Jesus’s pain, his suffering, and his blood. Why are we worshiping a god of suffering? Did Jesus really want us to do this? Or did he want us to focus on the Resurrection and how it proves that death is not the end?
People who are fixated on pain and suffering tend to experience a lot of pain and suffering themselves. And this is what Christianity’s fixation on the Crucifixion has wrought: An emphasis on pain, suffering, and sin.
It has also made the religion dour and morose, which is off-putting to many people. In contrast, Jesus’s teachings were far more positive than negative. Also consider Christian Contemporary music which is very upbeat and has helped bring many new people to the religion. Positive will always be better than negative.
Of course, this is not to suggest that Christianity needs to be all sunshine and roses. It shouldn’t promise anyone that they will have an easy life. It should warn that we each may have to bear our own cross for Christ. But the very heart of the religion does not need to be negative.
This is why the idea of penal substitutionary atonement needs to dropped and left on the ash heap of history. Not only is it false, but it is an anchor that has weighed Christianity down for far too long.
Lamsa, George. Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels. New York, HarperCollins, 1985.
Christians who believe that Jesus’s death on the cross was necessary to make salvation possible have referred to this as penal substitutionary atonement. It is the idea that, by being crucified, Christ bore all the sins of mankind.
However, there are problems with this idea. First, why would it even be necessary? God is all-powerful. He could make salvation possible just by willing it. Why demand a sacrifice at all?
Second, if this idea is true, then it would mean that salvation is only possible through Christ which would invalidate every other religion in the world. Jesus spoke of a God who is all-loving. Would a loving God only create one path to heaven through one particular teacher? Would a loving God send a good person to hell simply because they are not a follower of Jesus? This seems unlikely if the description that Jesus gave of God is true.
One Bible verse that has been put forth as supporting penal substitutionary atonement is John 3:13:
Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man.
On the surface, this would seem to support the idea of the atonement. For if no one has ever gone to heaven, the notion that Jesus was now providing the only path to get there makes sense.
However, in the previous three verses (10-12), Jesus is talking about his authority which includes the validity of his teaching. Jesus says he is teaching what he knows firsthand.
We speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen. (verse 11)
Based on this, we can conclude that Jesus in verse 13 is speaking in an exaggerated manner, which he often does. He is not saying that no one has ever gone to heaven. Rather, he is saying that no earthly teacher can really teach you about the nature of heaven. Only Jesus can because he has actually been there. Remember that Jesus descended from heaven. Therefore, only his testimony is valid. Only he can tell us the truth about salvation.
The idea of the atonement is also contradicted by certain verses in the Bible:
God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. (Numbers 23:19)
For I am the Lord, I do not change. (Malachi 3:6)
These verses say that God doesn’t change his mind. But if penal substitutionary atonement is true, then it would mean that God did indeed change his mind. For to offer a new path to heaven, to change the rules in regards to how people go to heaven, God would in effect be changing his mind. Was anyone even able to go to heaven before Jesus came along? If the answer is no, it’s hard to believe. It’s hard to believe there was a time when there was no path to heaven, as this also goes against the idea of a loving God.
Wouldn’t this also mean that God abandoned the Jewish people? The Old Testament tells us that the Jews were God’s chosen people, but if the Atonement is true, it would mean that God switched his allegiance from the Jews to the Christians. Again, it would mean that He changed his mind.
Hopefully, you can see that the idea of penal substitutionary atonement does not so easily fit into the Bible narrative. It is mostly based on one thing Jesus said:
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. (John 14:6)
In Christianity 2.0, I argue that Jesus here is speaking in an exaggerated manner due to the nature of the language he spoke which was Aramaic which used a great deal of exaggeration in its expressions. (Lamsa, Idioms, 1985, pp. 76, 78-79) I also argue that Jesus in this passage is referring not just to himself but to any high-level teacher which would also include Buddha and Krishna. He was also referring to reaching the spiritual state of unconditional love (540 on the Map of Consciousness), not merely going to heaven. Muscle testing confirms this as true.
Another downside of penal substitutionary atonement is that it puts too much emphasis on the Crucifixion. It puts too much emphasis on Jesus’s pain, his suffering, and his blood. Why are we worshiping a god of suffering? Did Jesus really want us to do this? Or did he want us to focus on the Resurrection and how it proves that death is not the end?
People who are fixated on pain and suffering tend to experience a lot of pain and suffering themselves. And this is what Christianity’s fixation on the Crucifixion has wrought: An emphasis on pain, suffering, and sin.
It has also made the religion dour and morose, which is off-putting to many people. In contrast, Jesus’s teachings were far more positive than negative. Also consider Christian Contemporary music which is very upbeat and has helped bring many new people to the religion. Positive will always be better than negative.
Of course, this is not to suggest that Christianity needs to be all sunshine and roses. It shouldn’t promise anyone that they will have an easy life. It should warn that we each may have to bear our own cross for Christ. But the very heart of the religion does not need to be negative.
This is why the idea of penal substitutionary atonement needs to dropped and left on the ash heap of history. Not only is it false, but it is an anchor that has weighed Christianity down for far too long.
Lamsa, George. Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels. New York, HarperCollins, 1985.