The Twinkie defense

I have a longer post in preparation with some thoughts on the theory of retributive punishment, but I wanted to share what I think is a helpful word picture (pun intended!) derived from St. Athanasius' classic On the Incarnation of the Word that can help understand why it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and die, without that suffering and death being penal, i.e. a punishment inflicted upon him.


According to Athanasius, the ultimate goal of the incarnation of the Word was to purge human nature of the corruption of sin and revive it. But human nature could not be cleansed of corruption from the outside: renewal had to take place from within. The only being with the kind of life which could renew the life of the human creature was the Word. Thus the Word took on a body and allowed that body to suffer all the consequences of sin, including death, so that the Life of the Word could then neutralize and destroy them entirely.

A helpful way to think about Athanasius' argument is in disease terms. Imagine a healthy person deliberately exposing himself to a deadly disease, knowing that he has the vitality and strength to neutralize it and thus produce an antidote. To do so the person has to actually suffer from the disease. It is painful for the body to go through the systems as the immune system furiously develops the antidote (it goes without saying this analogy should not be pressed too far!), but ultimately the disease is completely neutralized, the person springs back to health and can now 'infect' others with the antidote.

Jesus suffered death so that he could destroy it and infect us with life. He is truly the Great Physician.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/08/christ-antidote.html

I won’t comment on whether or not that’s a representative statement of Athanasius’ overall position on the atonement. I’m not a patrologist, and I’m more concerned with exegeting Bible writers than church fathers. By the same token, I won’t comment on whether or not this is an accurate illustration of his position.

Instead, I’ll just comment on JD’s illustration on its own terms:

i) To the extent that Scripture uses medical metaphors to depict the person and work of Christ, it casts Jesus in the role of the physician, not the patient. Jesus is not the one who is sick. Rather, he heals the sick.

So JD is subverting the Biblical symbolism.

ii) Yes, it’s possible to dream up a medical illustration in which a doctor is both a patient and a healer. However, that’s not developing a Biblical depiction of Christ. That’s at odds with the Biblical depiction.

iii) Even on its own terms, how does JD literally envision Christ infecting us? At the Incarnation, are all human beings plugged into Christ through plastic tubing, so that we receive antibodies through a dominical blood transfusion?

But if we drop the metaphor, what does that mean, exactly? If every human being is receiving the same transfusion, why are so of the patients deathly ill?

iii) JD is, in effect, reducing salvation to sanctification and glorification. To the merely subjective and manward aspects of salvation.

There’s nothing wrong with that as far as it goes. But as many have noted over the years, heresies tend to be half-truths.

iv) Consistent with his repudiation of penal substitution and retributive punishment, his illustration excises the whole forensic dimension of sin and salvation. Gone are guilt, righteousness, justice, and justification. Even if the labels are retained to keep up appearances, they’re radically redefined.

There’s no place in this framework for good and evil. Illness replaces evil. The Twinkies made me do it.