통전적 구속교리: 형벌 대속(penal substitution)이론을 중심으로

Abstract

We Christians confess Jesus Christ as the savior or redeemer of the humanity. The focal point of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ is the atonement of the humanity through his crucifixion. There are variety of types in the way to understand and explain the atonement. Among these, probably the most influential atonement theory in the churches belonging to the so-called evangelical protestantism may be the penal substitution theory. Based on the exegesis of many texts of the Old and New Testaments, this theory understands the death of Jesus as the substitutionary sacrifice in which Jesus, by taking up the punishment the humanity deserves because of his/her sin, propitiated the wrath of God and satisfied the divine justice. Up until now, this theory has been regarded as the orthodox atonement doctrine which represents the soteriology of the evangelical churches particularly in the Reformed tradition. Today, however, critical views against this theory have been raised by many theologians. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, who wrote The Lost Message of Jesus which evoked great repercussions among theological circles, are the two of the theologians who refute the penal substitution theory. They criticize that this theory makes the loving God the Father a tyrant who pumps his anger into His Son burning with revenge. They insist that this theory entirely contradicts not only with the biblical witness of God as love but also with Jesus’teaching that we should love our enemy without returning evil for evil. In this paper, at first, I introduce the major types of traditional atonement theories which have been formulated in the Church history. At second, I investigate the main points of the penal substitution theory. At third, I introduce the critical views of the theologians in recent day against this theory. At fourth, I enquire into the sacrificial rite and prophetic message in the Old Testament and the understanding of the death of Jesus by Jesus himself and the New Testament writers. And finally, I try to propose a vision of the wholistic atonement theology which is both faithful to the biblical witnesses and intelligible to contemporary circumstances.