"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (15)

Wright really seems to have a problem with punishment, and also he seems to say that sacrifices in Leviticus were predominantly associated with accidental sins. This raises a number if questions. With regard to the latter point. What about our deliberate sins? Are they not dealt with? The more serious questions relate to the former. Wright’s view seems to leave out the question of justice. One the most important aspects of penal substitutionary atonement is that God has acted justly in forgivings us (see 1 John 1:9). It is more than just God deciding to forgive us, and definitely more than overlooking our sins. On Loc 4856 Wright says “the sacrificial blood is the sign of God-given life, a life more powerful than death”. Well, maybe, but he seems to say this is the prime purpose of the blood. This really does raise the question of why did Jesus have to die. Was his death merely symbolic, or did it actually achieve a concrete purpose., and if the latter, how did it achieve that purpose. The atonement view seems to me to provide proper answers to these questions, Wright’s view does not provide satisfactory answers.

Wright considers Isaiah 53 and I have to say I find some of the things he says very strange. (Loc 4890) he says

“punishment that made us whole” (Is 53:5), means what it means and makes the sense it makes not within the moralistic works contract, an abstract scheme of sin and punishment, but within the covenant of vocation, the image bearing, glory sharing covenant.

First, Wright often uses his own translation, which are not always that familiar! Second what is abstract about sin and punishment? My sin is not abstract, it is utterly real. My sin has offended God, it has hurt me, and it has hurt others. There is nothing abstract about it. And under penal substitutionary atonement there is nothing abstract about the cross. Indeed, it is the harsh reality of the cross that brings the covenant of vocation into reality.

At Loc 4924 Wright says “the idea of punishment is in reality a sharp metaphor for the consequence that is writ large across the history of Israel”. Wright seems to see the “punishment” as consequences, almost as if God is not directly involved. Wright is aware of this danger, but I don’t think he avoids it. There are philosophical problems, more importantly there are Biblical problems. The Bible shows God as actively punishing sinners. He cast Adam and Eve out of the garden, He sent Assyria and Babylon against Israel, Jesus says “I never knew you”.