Biblical & Historical Rebuttal of Tony Jones' "Better Atonement"

Postmodern Music and the Problem of Atonement

These are the sounds of the emergent postmodern philharmonic orchestra conducted by Doug Paget and Tony Jones sitting in second fiddle today. This is their spirit-led rendition of Strauss's also sprung Zarathustra.

As you can tell, they've been set free from the limiting definitions of modernist notes and are just able to let the spirit guide them and breathe through them as they breathe new life into this song.

Here, listen in. Ah yes, there's nothing like postmodern music. And that's a good thing. Because if you know it's postmodern, you can just avoid it like the plague. Okay, like yesterday, we were talking about Tony Jones' appearance on the television program called The Harvest Show.

He was interviewed by one of the regular guests, Drew Summerall, regarding Tony Jones' book, e-book out there, The Better Atonement. And yesterday, we got to hear Tony Jones give us his definition of theology.

And theology is basically everything. And as soon as theology becomes everything, then it becomes nothing. Because, like I've pointed out yesterday, theology, Christian theology, is an observational science.

We must look into the written word of God because all scripture, the written word of God, is God-breathed. And it's profitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness so the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work.

In other words, when it comes to what was Jesus doing on the cross, coming up with an answer to that, theologically, is impossible. And this is what I mean. Impossible to do without a revelation from God telling us what Jesus was doing on the cross.

To any observer who happened to be just outside the walls of Jerusalem on that particular Friday, they would have been walking into Jerusalem and they would have noticed that the sun had been darkened.

Strange things were afoot. And they would have noticed three crosses out there on Golgotha. And there was Jesus. They may have heard Him saying things like, Father forgive them, they know not what they're doing.

Or they may have heard Him crying out, Eloi, Eloi, Labasabachthani, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Or they may have heard Him saying to John, the apostle John, son, your mother, mother, your son.

Things like that. They may have witnessed things like that. But all they would have known is that, well, there's some poor guy who's obviously run afoul of the Roman Empire. They're making an example of him.

He's obviously an evildoer because cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. And they probably would have kept on walking, right? Unless, of course, they knew who Jesus was. Isn't that the, oh, well, we had had hopes that Jesus was the Messiah.

Well, I guess we were wrong. It turns out He's a criminal after all. So they wouldn't have been able to theologically connect any of the dots as to what's going on there, just in witnessing or walking past the historical event.

Same with us. Without a clear word from God telling us in Scripture what Jesus was doing on the cross, you and I are left in the dark. There'd be no way for us to theologically interpret what's going on there.

We have no way of getting at it. Okay? But thankfully, God has not left us in the dark. And we have in Scripture clear text inspired by God the Holy Spirit. These are God-breathed words that tell us what Jesus was doing on the cross.

Now, do you think for a second that Tony Jones is going to go to those to tell us what Jesus was doing on the cross? I wouldn't bet on it. In fact, you're going to be rather disappointed in Tony Jones, and you should be disappointed not only in him, but also Drew Summerall and the folks over at The Harvest Show, for allowing him to air this false theology that doesn't have its origin in the Word of God.

So without any further ado, here is Drew Summerall and Tony Jones discussing Tony Jones' book, A Better Atonement. Here we go.

Tony Jones' Definition of Atonement and Penal Substitution

And we're back with Tony Jones, the author of the new best-selling e-book, A Better Atonement. So first of all, for folks who may be... I just got to stop.

A Better Atonement. I mean, talk about theological hubris. I mean, A Better Atonement. Like I can improve upon what God's Word says? Seriously? I mean, good night.

We aren't familiar with that word. I'm sure they're familiar with what we're going to talk about. But just the word atonement, what does that even mean?

Yeah, it's a technical theological term, so we can avoid it for the rest of the interview if you like. I wouldn't mind. But it means what happened when Jesus died on the cross.

What does that mean for us as far as doctrine?

Yeah, so like, you know, when you're a kid, somebody says to you, Jesus died for your sins. And you're like, okay. And you accept that, and you accept Jesus into your heart. At a certain point, often it happens during mid-adolescence, you'll be like, how exactly does that work?

What do you mean Jesus died? By what cosmic calculus does the death of Jesus cleanse me of my sins? And that's where theology kicks in. It's like, oh, well, actually, as my book shows, there have been about a dozen major ideas of how the math works that Jesus dying on a cross cleanses us of our sin.

I'd say probably the most popular today in the West, in America, in evangelical Christianity would be that of, or maybe a menu of, including at the top, what is penal substitution? What is that theory of the atonement?

Right, that's another technical term. So it basically boils down to this. God is angry at you because of your sin. And God's sense of justice is so all-encompassing that God couldn't possibly allow you into his presence because you're sinful.

End of story. Until Jesus steps between you two, takes God's wrath, and now God looks at you, and all he sees is Jesus. And now you can experience eternal life with God. Now let me play devil's advocate.

Somebody's probably watching going, well, that's exactly the way it is. That's what Paul says in Romans. And that has been the theory of the atonement since the early church, right? Wrong.

Good question, but no. Now, before we let him go on, let's take a look at our Bibles, okay? He talks in terms of theories of the atonement. No, there's biblical passages that explain what was going on when Jesus was hanging on the cross.

Let's look at them, okay? I dare not, I dare not speculate here, okay? So if I'm going to tell you what Jesus was doing on the cross, what, you know, what that was all about, I'm going to say the same thing as Scripture says.

That's what we're called to do. By the way, the technical term there is confession, and in the Greek it's homilio, means to say the same thing as. So I'm going to confess what Scripture says regarding what Christ was doing on the cross.

We'll begin with Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53, I'll start at verse 1. Here's what the prophet Isaiah, prophesying regarding Jesus' crucifixion, said about it. Who has believed what he has heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground, he had no form of majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and as one from whom men hid their faces, he was despised and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds, or by his wounds, we are healed.

Now the Hebrew here for chastisement can also literally be translated punished. So upon him was the punishment that brought us peace, and by his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, and we have turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, he was afflicted, and yet he opened not his mouth, and like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and as for his generation who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgressions of my people, and they made his grave with the wicked and with the rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him. He has put him to grief. When his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, and out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied by his knowledge, shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted or credited righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.".

So we can glean from Isaiah chapter 53 that Jesus, whom this is prophesying about, was pierced for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, God crushed him, God laid on him the iniquity of us all.

This is what the text says. How that works? Don't know. I can tell you that this is what the text says. I'm not called to challenge God's word. I'm not called to disbelieve it, to muddy it or just cast it aside and say, I don't like this.

Instead, I'm called to believe it, teach it, confess it. This passage is God-breathed. Now there's more. Let me take you to the book of Hebrews. It really takes some time in fleshing this out. As it's written to Hebrew Christians, the book of Hebrews itself takes great pains to explain how the Old Testament sacrificial system was a type and shadow pointing us to the real thing, the real thing being the death of Jesus Christ.

Think of the entire Old Testament system of animal sacrifices. That was to point us to Jesus, the one true sacrifice who makes peace between us and the Father through his blood. Why? Because we need our sins to be forgiven and this explains certain things theologically for us that we wouldn't know otherwise.

I'll start at chapter 8 and I'm going to keep reading for a while even though this is technical stuff in this chapter. I would recommend reading it yourself as I'm reading it for you or take some time afterwards to walk through the passage.

Hebrews chapter 8, here's what it says. Now the point in what we are saying is this. We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places in the very true tent that the Lord set up, not man.

For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all since there are priests who would offer according to the law.

They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God saying, see that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

For he finds fault with them when he says, behold, the days are coming declares the Lord when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not like the covenant that I made with the land of Egypt for they did not continue in my covenant and so I showed no concern for them declares the Lord for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days declares the Lord I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my people and they shall not teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother saying know the Lord for he forgives their iniquities and I will remember their sins no more.

Now in speaking of a new covenant he makes the first one obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Now, even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness for a tent was prepared for the first section in which the lampstand was placed.

It is called the holy place behind the second curtain was the second section called the most holy place having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold and which was a golden urn holding the manna and Aaron's staff that budded and the tablets of the covenant.

Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat and of these things they went regularly into the first section performing their ritual duties but in the second only the high priest goes and he but once a year and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section of sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper but deal only with food and drink and various washings regulations for the body imposed until the time of Reformation.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come then through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands but of goats and calves but by means of his own blood thus securing an eternal redemption.

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer sanctify for the purification of the flesh well how much more will the blood of Christ who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Therefore he Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

For where a will is involved the death of the one who made it must be established for a will takes effect in the first covenant. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all of the people he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all of the people saying this is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.

And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood of the covenant of worship. Indeed under the law almost everything is purified with blood and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Let me read that again. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Now does the Bible say why that is. No it doesn't. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rights.

But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered not into holy places made with hands which are copies of the true things. But he entered into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest who sacrifices every year with blood not his own. For then he Jesus would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is he has appeared once and for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself and just as it is appointed for man to die once and after that comes the judgment.

So Christ having been offered once but to save those who eagerly are waiting for him. So you kind of get the idea of what's going on here that Jesus Christ his blood shed is for the forgiveness of our sins.

This is what scripture clearly says that he redeems us that he suffered in our place and basically took all of our sins upon himself and through his blood we then are saved. Got it? That's what the text says.

Let me point you to another passage 2nd Corinthians chapter 5. All of this is from God. Verse 18. All of this is from God who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation that is in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ and God is making his appeal through us. So we implore you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God for our sake. He God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Another passage 1st Timothy chapter 2 verses 5 and 6. For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all which is the testimony given at the proper time.

And then I would just simply add to this Paul's synopsis a summary of the gospel itself. You want to know what the gospel the good news is. Paul actually summarizes the gospel in this passage is one of the very first and earliest Christian creeds or confessions.

1st Corinthians chapter 15. Starting at verse 1 Paul says. Now I would remind you brothers of the gospel the good news that I preached to you which you believed in which you stand and by which you are being saved if you hold fast to the word that I preached to you unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered as of first importance what I received. That Christ died in accordance with the scripture that he was buried that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scripture. And that he appeared to Cephas then to the twelve.

Then he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time most of whom are still alive though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James and to all the apostles. And last of all to one untimely born he appeared also to me.

Got it? So it's pretty straightforward that God the father laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all that God made him Jesus to be sin who knew no sin so that we might be the righteousness of God. And as Paul points out in Philippians chapter 3 that we who are in Christ don't have a righteousness of our own that comes through the law.

But we are clothed in the righteousness of God the righteousness that comes by faith. Okay? So there's like a double exchange that goes on in Christ. He is pierced for our transgressions. He is crucified for our sins and dies.

His blood establishes for us the forgiveness of our sins. And it's a redemption. It's a penal substitutionary sacrifice that propitiates the wrath of God. This is what all the biblical texts say. Okay?

I can't go beyond that because I have nothing outside of scripture that's going to shed any better light than what the light that scripture says. So I then I'm to embrace and teach what scripture says and teaches say the same thing as now.

Penal Substitution in the Church Fathers

One of the things I took the time to do is on my letter of mark blog I have a new blog post called penal substitution in the writings of the church fathers. Penal substitution in the writings of the church fathers.

And what I want to read for you are some of these quotes from the earliest Christian church fathers who are teaching the same thing as what the passages I just read for you are for instance Justin Martyr who lived from about 100 AD to 165 in his work in dialogue with Trifo which you can find in the writings of the Antinicean fathers in chapter 95 in his dialogue with Trifo.

Here's what Justin Martyr says. He talks about Christ who took upon himself the curse due to us. Here's what Justin Martyr says. For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses.

Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all the things that are written in the book of the law and continue to do them. That's Deuteronomy 27 verse 26. And it says. Not all nor will you venture to deny this but some more and some less and others have observed the ordinances and joined.

But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse. Who practice idolatry. Who seduce youths and commit other crimes.

If then the father of all wished to kill him knowing that after he had been crucified and was dead he would raise him up. Why do you argue about him who submitted to suffer these things according to the father's will as if he were accursed.

And do not rather bewail yourselves. For although his father caused him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family yet you did not commit the deed as in disobedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety and let none of you say if his father wished him to suffer this in order that by his stripes the human race might be healed we have done no wrong.

If indeed you repent of your sins and recognize him to be the Christ and observe his commandments then you may assert this. For as I have said before remission of sins shall be yours or forgiveness. But if you curse him and them that believe on him and when you have the power it is possible that requisition shall not be made of you as of unrighteousness of unrighteous and sinful men altogether hard-hearted without understanding because you laid your hands on him.

Here's Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote between 275 and 339 AD. Here's what he says. So it is said. And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity he bears our sins. Thus the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world whom though he knew no sin God made sin for our sake giving him as redemption for all that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

2 Corinthians 5 21. And how can he make our sins his own and be said to bear our iniquities except by our being regarded as his body according to the apostle who says now ye are the body of Christ and severally members of it.

And by the rule that if one member suffers all the members suffer with it and all the members suffer in sin. He too by the laws of sympathy takes into himself the labors of the suffering members and makes our sickness his and suffers all of our woes and labors by the laws of love.

And the Lamb of God not only did this but was chastised on our behalf and suffered a penalty he did not owe but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins. And so he became the cause and gave to himself the scourging and the insults and the dishonor which were due to us and drew down upon himself the appointed curse being made a curse for us.

Hilary of Poitiers who wrote between 300 and 368 on his homily on Psalm 53 says this. For next there follows. I will sacrifice unto thee freely. The sacrifices of the law which consisted of whole burnt offerings did not involve an expression of free will because the sentence of a curse was pronounced on all who broke the law.

Whoever failed to sacrifice laid himself open to the curse and it was always necessary to go through the whole sacrificial action because the addition of a curse to the commandment forbade any trifling with the obligation of offering.

It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us when as the apostle says Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law being made curse for us everyone that hangs on a tree. Thus he offered himself to death of the accursed that he might break the curse of the law offering himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed.

Athanasius in his book On the Incarnation he says this. Thus taking a body like our own he surrendered his body to death in place of all and offered it to the Father. He did out of sheer love for us so that in his death all might die and the law of death thereby abolished.

Because having fulfilled in his body that for which it was appointed it was thereafter voided of its power for men. Thus he did that he might turn again into incorruption men who had turned back to corruption and make them alive through death by the appropriation of his body and by the grace of his resurrection.

Thus he would make death to disappear from them utterly as straw from fire. And then later in the same work here's what he says. The word that's Jesus perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death.

Yet he himself as the word being immortal and the Father Son was such as could not die. For this reason therefore he it through belonging to the word who is above all might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all and itself remain incorruptible through his indwelling might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well by the grace of the resurrection it was by surrendering to death the body which he had taken as an offering and a sacrifice free from every stain that he forthwith abolished death for his human brethren.

The word of God was above all when he offered his own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all he fulfilled in death all that was required. I'll read one more of these. This is from John Christostom on his homilies on 2nd Corinthians Christostom writes.

He says. If one that was himself a king beholding a robber and malefactor and a punishment gave his well beloved son his only begotten son and true son who was himself of no such character that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation.

And then if having subsequently promoted him to great dignity he had yet after thus saving him and advancing him to the glory unspeakable been outraged by the person that had received such treatment. Would not that man if he had any sense have chosen 10 ,000 deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude to suffer with ourselves and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our benefactor.

Nor let us therefore presume because through outrage he bears it with long suffering but rather for this very reason be full of remorse. Now I have other quotes from the church fathers including Gregory of Nazianzus Ambrose of Milan Augustine of Hippo Gelsius of I can't pronounce this one Gregory church father and then as well as Gregory the great.

Now there's more that I could put here. But the point is is that when you read the writings of the church fathers those church fathers have absolutely no problem whatsoever talking about the fact that Jesus Christ became a curse for us that he was chastised for us that he suffered our penalty in our place the church fathers have no problem discussing this and the church fathers that I'm quoting from the point is this.

Where did these church fathers get these ideas from. Answer from the written word of God that so clearly tells us what Jesus was doing on the cross. Now do you think that Tony Jones is going to point us to these church fathers.

Do you think Tony Jones is going to point us to these passages and then tell us what these passages say Jesus was doing on the cross. Well no he's a liberal theologian. He's not going to point us to what the word of God says.

He's going to point us elsewhere. Let's listen in.

Tony Jones Denies the Historic Doctrine of the Atonement

That theory of the atonement is modern. It's happened only recently because really that's weird because I just quoted half a dozen church fathers who all teach it. How is that modern. It happened really.

It started with a guy named Anselm. There was no such thing.

Before 1000. Before the year 1000 AD. Really that's weird because not only did I quote the Bible in the New Testament passages which were finished well before 70 AD but I quoted Justin Martyr from the early 2nd century Eusebius of Caesarea late 3rd century Hilary of Poitres again he's 4th century Athanasius 4th century.

Yeah I could bring others to bear here. That's weird because Tony Jones just emphatically said this didn't exist until 1000 AD. Weird. I mean I just quoted people that teach penal substitution long before 1000 AD.

Listen again. That theory of the atonement.

Is modern. It's happened only recently because it happened really. It started with a guy named Anselm in the middle ages just as though there was no such thing before the year 1000 AD that was thought of as modern legal theory.

There was no such thing people lived in feudal systems with a lord. Modern legal theory. Let me again.

Listen to this modern legal theory and this was written in the 4th century if one that was himself a king beholding a robber and a malefactor under punishment gave his well beloved son his only begotten and true to be slain and transfer the death and the guilt as well from him to his son who was himself of no such character that he might both save the condemned man.

Okay how is this possible. I mean this is a miracle. Before there was any modern legal theory. Good night before there was any modern legal theory. We have John Christostom discussing Jesus' death in terms of legal theory and that's out of place because this idea regarding Christ's death on the cross and the atonement was not supposed to happen until well the.

There was no such thing before the year 1000 A .D. as that was thought of as like modern legal theory. There was no such thing. People lived in feudal systems with a lord lived up on a hill and all the serfs lived down the slopes and they paid homage to their lord and the lord protected them.

Well interestingly theories of the atonement before the year 1000 looked a lot more like that the lord protecting vassals or serfs and protecting those people from the attacks of evil. So in those days there was.

It's weird because I mean what I just read from the ancient church fathers doesn't sound anything like what Tony Jones is describing. Weird huh. It's a very popular theory of the atonement that said what Jesus did on the cross primarily was the Latin term for it.

But Christ the victor over Satan. Well now we live in the most litigious legal society in history so notice here. This is kind of the unwritten premise here.

And I'll point it out is that Tony Jones is basically saying that all of these theologies are based upon cultural understandings and that the atonement on the cross changes. Well so there's no such thing as a biblical anchored once for all delivered to the saints doctrine regarding Christ's atonement.

No no no there's modifications going on as a result of cultural influences and so basically theories of the atonement.

Abound because it has nothing to do with what Jesus was really doing. On the cross between federal law state law and local ordinances we have. You and I each have more laws over us than any other human beings who've ever existed.

We think legally so no surprise we have a very legalistic understanding of the atonement. And that's where you get things like maybe when you go to a church and somebody condemns you to death and then he takes off the robe and goes to the electric chair for you kind of Jesus the lawyer.

Becomes a very judicial kind of thing. I want to point this out this is just a really bad sermon illustration that he's shooting down. He's not actually touching the biblical text to say that he was pierced for our transgressions bruised for our iniquities.

No he's not touching those texts he's shooting down a sermon illustration that's not the same thing.

As dealing with what the clear biblical passages say the thing like there's a price to be paid you've done something wrong you earn a penalty someone needs to pay that penalty. But the funny thing about this thing is like if that ever happened in an actual courtroom and the judge like but I'm going to go to the electric chair for this man I've just condemned to death everybody in the.

Courtroom. Be like no dude that's not how it works that's not justice like you don't get to do that. And the reason it breaks down is because well the analogy in our legal system a judge doesn't have that authority.

Change it though to something like a kingdom where the legislative branch the executive branch and the judicial branch all lie in the king. And then it starts to make sense.

That's right that's not just so. In the last 30 years we've seen the emergence to use that word of some new theories one of which has been developed by Rene Girard who I'm a very big fan of. Yeah was it some of his theories that made you want to write about the atonement.

Yeah I think his theories are fascinating. So he.

Comes at it he brings kind of a fresh perspective because he's an anthropologist and not a theologian so he's so we're going to have a fresh perspective on the atonement from an anthropologist. Again.

My question is what's going to be your source for coming up with Christian doctrine God's Word or man's teachings and ideas and philosophies. And he says look throughout.

Primitive human history people said when bad things happen it's because two people want the same thing and conflict builds up and resentment builds up and violence ends up happening. I mean in the earlier reports on Israel we might even look at the whole thing of what continues to happen in the Middle East of all these resentments over the same piece of property.

And so then violence happens. And Girard says what people did in primitive religions was you know they throw a virgin into a volcano right. Or they sacrifice an innocent victim. Yeah. And all the attention dissipates.

Right. Temporarily. Right. Right until it starts. And this is called a scapegoat theory right. And so Girard says. But when Jesus goes to the cross he shows the bankruptcy of that whole system violence.

Does really so what passage in the New Testament or old. Because Isaiah 53 is from the Old Testament.

Tells us that Jesus goes to the cross to show us. The bankruptcy of the sacrificial system does not cure anybody of their resentment it never works it's a dead end. And by God going to the cross we look at Jesus on the cross and go.