
In broad strokes, my critique of the traditional interpretation of the Cross that God punished Jesus for our sins (Penal Substitutionary Atonement or PSA) is threefold. The doctrine misrepresents the character of God, distorts the message of the gospel, and perpetuates a theology rooted in violence and retribution. My argument is grounded in a Christocentric reading of Scripture and René Girard’s mimetic theory, which emphasises Jesus’ role in exposing and dismantling human systems of violence rather than participating in them. What follows is a five-point explanation.
1. Misrepresentation of God’s Character
PSA portrays God as wrathful and needing satisfaction through violent punishment. This conflicts with the revelation of God in Jesus, who embodies unconditional love, mercy, and forgiveness. Jesus reveals a God who does not demand retribution but freely offers reconciliation and the grace of spacious acceptance.
2. Rooted in Human Violence, Not Divine Justice
PSA projects human systems of justice (punishment and scapegoating) onto God. I contend that God does not require violence to forgive. Instead, Jesus’ death exposes humanity's reliance on sacrificial violence and offers a way out of the vicious cycle of interhuman violence that always tends toward the extreme.
3. Misunderstanding the Cross
PSA frames the cross as a transaction to satisfy God’s justice, reducing it to a legal mechanism. I see the cross as Jesus’ ultimate act of self-giving love, revealing humanity’s sinfulness (our scapegoating and violence) while demonstrating God’s unwavering forgiveness. Jesus dies not to appease the Father but to unmask the mechanisms of sin and violence and to reconcile humanity to himself (in the divine/human relationship, God is not the wrathful party, we are).
4. Violence as Central to Salvation
PSA makes violence essential to the atonement, implying that God endorses and utilises violence to achieve divine purposes. I reject this, arguing that the cross is about exposing and rejecting violence, not validating it.
5. Distortion of the Gospel Message
PSA often emphasises individual guilt and punishment, sidelining the broader themes of liberation, reconciliation, and the inauguration of God’s peaceful kingdom.
I assert that the gospel is about freeing humanity from the power of mimetic rivalry and violence (original sin?) and inviting people into God’s nonviolent, restorative kingdom. My atonement interpretation is based on Girardian insights:
• The crucifixion is humanity’s act of scapegoating an innocent victim (Jesus), which Jesus willingly endures to expose the cycle of violence, offering forgiveness for his persecutors.
• The resurrection is God’s vindication of Jesus’ message of peace, love, and nonviolence, proving that God’s kingdom operates on forgiveness, not retribution.
In summary, I reject PSA because it frames the cross as a divine demand for violence, misrepresents God’s nature, and perpetuates a theology incompatible with Jesus’ teachings and example. Instead, the cross reveals God’s nonviolent love and dismantles humanity’s reliance on sacrificial systems.
What do we see in the Cross? The power of love, loving the unlovable in the worst moment of unlovableness.
References
Alison, James. The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes. New York: Crossroad, 1998.
Bailey, Gil, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroad, New York: Crossroad, 1995.
Bartlett, Anthony W. Crosspurposes: The Violent Grammar of Christian Atonement. Trinity Press, 2001.
Girard, Rene. Battling to the End; Conversation with Bennoît Chantre. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2010.
__________. Sacrifice. Trans. Matthew Patillo and David Dawson. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2011.
__________.Violence and the Sacred, Trans. Pattrick Gregory, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.
Hardin, Michael and Lori Hardin. The Jesus Driven Life: Reconnecting Humanity with Jesus. Lancaster, PA: JDL Press, 2010.
Stork, Peter R. Cosmos and Revelation: Reimagining God’s Creation in the Age of Science. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2021.
Comments