Reparation and Atonement

Author(s): David Mcnaughton

Source: Religious Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jun., 1992), pp. 129-144
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019535
Accessed: 13/10/2010 21:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Religious
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Rel. Stud. 28, pp.

129-144

DAVID MCNAUGHTON

REPARATION
The

Christian

doctrine

of

AND ATONEMENT

the Atonement

has

been

in several
interpreted
Swinburne
offers us a version

In Responsibility
and Atonement,1 Richard
ways.
account
of the sacrificial
of Christ's
work. This version
claims
redemptive
that in the life and death of Jesus we have a gift of great and fitting value,
to us, and which we can in turn offer
which God himself has made
available
to God

as reparation
and penance
for our sins. My paper has two main parts.
I shall argue that his account
is conceptually
in the
incoherent;
that it is morally
I then briefly
flawed.
that
the
suggest
exemplary
can capture,
than can the reparation
better
those
features
theory,

In the first
second

theory
which
Swinburne
I take

exposition

to be desirable

believes

Swinburne's

account

of the theory,

as my

but my

in any account
of the Atonement.
because
it
is
the best modern
target

argument

is intended

to have wider

signi?

ficance.

account
Swinburne's
of the redemptive
is rooted
activity of God in Christ
in an analysis
of the concepts
of guilt, atonement
as they
and forgiveness
human
In brief, this view holds that in doing
transactions.
apply to mundane
one acquires guilt, which
is a bad state to be in. The removal of guilt
wrong
action both by the wrongdoer
and by his victim. The
normally
requires
some
to
atone for his crime and the victim must
must,
extent,
wrongdoer
forgive.
actions

However,
alone,

it is possible for the wrongdoer

to remove guilt by his own
the victim
remain
obdurate
in repeated
to
refusals
full atonement.
is an attempt
to annul, as far as
Atonement
should

forgive despite
is possible,
the bad consequences
are of two kinds:
of the wrongdoing,
which
attitude
first, the harm done to the victim;
second, the morally
reprehensible
towards the victim displayed
in the wrongdoing.2
There are four elements
in
: repentance,
atonement
and
and
penance.
apology,
reparation
By repenting
the wrongdoer
as far as possible
distances
himself
from the
apologizing
act.
attitude
in
his
In
he does what he can to
displayed
making
reparation
repair the harm
strict reparation
Since Christ's

he gives something
done, and in penance
in 'token of his sorrow'
(p. 84).
life and death are, on Swinburne's
account,

over

and

offered

above

by us to

1
R. G. Swinburne,
in
Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford :Clarendon
Press, 1989). All page references
this article are to this book.
2
a hostile attitude
A wrongdoer
often displays
to his victim, but he need not do so. There
can be
in which
or lack of concern,
I display
indifference
rather than hostility,
to the
negligent
wrongdoing
victim.
I owe this point to Brian Smart.
5 RES 28

DAVID

I3O

MCNAUGHTON

as reparation
and penance
for our
two elements more closely. The

sins, we need to examine his account

best reparation,
which may
take the
form of goods or services,
is repair or restitution
the status
; that is restoring
I broke or replace what
I lost then the victim's
quo ante. If I can mend what

God

of these

at the end is, in that respect,

from what
it was
position
indistinguishable
before the wrong was committed.
If that is not possible
must
the wrongdoer
cases
in
no
there
be
many
may
provide
compensation,
although
precise way
of calculating
the amount. The full cost of reparation
not
takes into account
or
cost and inconvenience
loss
harm, but also whatever
only the original
flowed

from

term'

that

loss or harm.

(p. 81), Swinburne

over
to the victim,

thing
'
is that which

more

That
element which,
'for want
of a better
calls penance,
also involves the giving of some good
and above what
is owed to him. The best penance

it up to you in the respect in which

I harmed
a
to
concern
must
a
be
evince
that
you...
penance,
good,
particular
harm was done which was done'
I might,
for example,
(pp. 156-7). Thus
buy you a better vase than the one I broke.
sense of penance.
As Swinburne
this is not the normal
Stand?
concedes,
a
act
of
the
to an
addressed
contrition,
symbolic
ardly,
penitent
performs
than makes

because

he, at
(whether God alone or some wider
community)
whereby
some cost to himself,
It need involve no direct benefit
expresses his remorse.
or anyone
to the victim,
else. Thus
Samuel Johnson
did public penance
in
a wrong
to
Uttoxeter
market
for
done
his
who
had
since
died.
father,
place,
audience

a benefit
In so doing he did not seek to provide
the possibility
of giving more
than what
is due
token

our

of

is clearly

repentance,

genuine

the right term to describe

it. My
not
make
theory will be that it does
reparation
can offer Christ's
to God which
life as a benefit
his sins. If this argument
is sound then, afortiori,
quite

perhaps,

life to God
serve against
of the paper.

one

to his father.

Nevertheless,

to the person

wronged,

even

main
sense
can

if penance

argument
to claim

in

is not,

the
against
a
that
sinner

serve as reparation
for
cannot offer that
the same argument
will

the sinner

as penance,
sense. Since
in Swinburne's
on reparation
both claims, I shall concentrate

in the remainder

two elements
in a
present
standardly
a
to
the
of
attitude
wrong
display
reprehensible
someone
him. This
of
whether
raises the question
another
wrong
might
seem
cases
to
to
harm
him.
there
be
such
without
;
Intuitively,
doing
although
Swinburne

claims

act :harm

that

there

to the victim

are

and

on a full discussion
of the notoriously
would depend
any final determination
is
which
the
of
this paper.
For
of
difficult
harm,
scope
concept
beyond
or
I have wronged
you if I deliberately
exposed you to
negligently
example,
an unjustified
if you emerged
In such a case, on
unscathed.
risk, even
Swinburne's
aration
done.

account,
and penance

and repentance
would
be
apology
as
we
not be required
would
since,

in order, but
say, no harm

rep?
was

AND

REPARATION

ATONEMENT

131

can be seen
account
that an act of reparation
a
as
of
the
part
wrongdoer's
taking
significant
parties
morally
by
the need to atone for the wrong
done, and thus as an important
seriously
an
to the removal of guilt. On
the part of the wrongdoer,
step on the way
to Swinburne's

It is central
both

at

attempt

is a

reparation

necessary

of

component

sincere

c
I

atonement

can to remove
the harm I have done you'
guilty if I do not do what I
it is, for the sake of the wrongdoer
and the
(p. 82). On the part of the victim
to withhold
until
future relations with him, justifiable
victim's
forgiveness
atonement
To
without
has
made.
sufficient
been
forgive
(some) reparation
remain

to treat
on the part of the wrongdoer
his offence,
would be to risk trivializing
'
can insist on
as being beneath
notice.
him, and his offence,
[T]he victim
it
that
he
and
sometimes
is
should
do so... for
substantial
good
reparation,
'
to
take seriously
the harm that has been done
that allows
[the wrongdoer]

(p. 86).
On

Swinburne's

another.

But

no-one

account,

that does

can

not mean

atone

for

the

or

wrongs

of

sins

not help him to atone. In

to make
the means
rep?
Swinburne
that
the
victim
claims,

that others may

give the wrongdoer

a third party may

particular,
if he lacks them. It is even possible,
aration
the means whereby
the wrongdoer
makes
himself might
reparation.
provide
cases
are
to
two
These
crucial
for he models
less standard
Swinburne,
on them. I shall
versions of his account
of the Atonement
(complementary)

them in rather more detail than he does but, before doing that, it will
analyse
the conditions
that apply in a paradigm
be useful to set out more
formally
are not fulfilled
case of reparation. We can then see which
in the
conditions
non-standard
W

cases,

makes

and what

reparation

modifications

need

to be made

to the analysis.

to V when

(1) W has wronged V

as a result of W's wrongdoing
(2) V has been harmed
a
in any or all of the following
W
V
with
benefit
(3)
provides
or
owns
which
W
(a) money
goods
W
services
which
(b)
provides
(c)

of a third person
of as he wishes

the services

which

owns

or has

forms:

the right

to

dispose
services to V, at some time after W has
supplies these goods and/or
to what
with
the
of
intention
it was
V,
wronged
restoring V's position
was
or
the
before
harm
V for the harm which W
done,
compensating
has done him.

(4) W

that reparation
involves
the transfer of some good
typically
It is costly for W because
it involves his giving up some good.
some good which,
obtains
but for W's act of reparation,
V, in consequence,
not have had.
he would

We

should

from W

note

to V.

It is because
the wrongdoer

reparation
that they

and penance
are, in the standard
case, costly to
the moral
have
which
Swinburne
significance
5-2

DAVID

132

MCNAUGHTON

to them. Swinburne
attributes
makes
this very clear in the case of penance.
'
costs him time, effort, and money,
which
[B]y doing
something
[the peni?
a
as
act
meant
that
constitutes
and serious act. To give what we cannot
tent]
too easily afford is always
the ruptured
relationship

a serious
between

act'

in the context of
(p. 84). Similarly,
the victim
and the wrongdoer,
the fact

act of reparation
the wrongdoer's
is costly to him makes
it a distinct
in serious and sincere atonement,
element
above and beyond
and
repentance
It is this fact which
it may
sometimes
be that the
apology.
explains why
even when he could
victim
should insist on (some) reparation,
easily afford
to waive
his right to it.
that

I turn now

to the less standard

and begin with

the more unusual
of
the victim himself
the means whereby
the wrongdoer
them, where
supplies
Swinburne
of a child who breaks his
makes
gives the example
reparation.
cannot
for
it.
The
window
and
pay
parent may give him the money
parent's
to pay to replace
The parent may

cases,

'and thereby make due reparation'

(p. 149).
to accept
the apology
until the window
is mended,
the child to take his wrongdoing
seriously.

the window
refuse

to encourage
to be clear as to the precise nature
It is important
of the child's act of
offers two possible
versions
of the story which
Swinburne
could
reparation.
in quite different ways.
In one the child is given
'a cheque
be interpreted
to the glazier which he can then use to pay the glazier
to put
made
payable
act
of reparation
in
in the window'
does the child perform
(p. 149). What
in order

out the parent's wishes? He provides

the parent a service
to the glazier
in taking the cheque
and making
the arrangements,
rather
to do it himself.
than the parent having
But the parent has not received
from the child. It is surely significant
that, in this version
financial reparation
this case if he carries

out to the glazier. The child has only two

is made
the glazier or to make no use of it at all ;he cannot
the glazier
is concerned,
put it to his own use. As far as the cost of paying
or
so
no
met
in
is
neither of conditions
definition
and
has
3
4
my
reparation
no
no
worse
The parent
been made.
is financially
better off, and the child
of the story, the cheque
: to use it to pay
options

act of reparation.
the alleged
to the
version
of the story the parent gives money
possible
Has
the child made
financial
the child pays for the window.
on the manner
to the parent?
I think the answer depends
in which
to pay the
is simply giving the child money
is given. If the parent

than before

off,

In the other
child

and

reparation
the money

and if he instructs the child to take the money

rather than a cheque,
glazier,
a cheque
case
to the case where
to the glazier,
is given
then the
is analogous
the parent
there is this
for the repair,
is. True,
the child is not paying
rather than take
that in this case the child could steal the money
difference,
remains
the
it to the glazier; but that just underlines
the fact that the money
however,
parent's.
Suppose,
form of weekly
pocket money,

in the
that the parent gives the money,
perhaps
to the child for the child to spend as he wishes,

AND

REPARATION

and

ATONEMENT

Here
there
then offers to pay for the window.
on
of
is a convincing
repentance
sign
genuine
can
are
met.
The
victim
and
Conditions
4
3
supply

the child

that

reparation
the child.

133

which

can make
the wrongdoer
rights to the wrongdoer
ownership
to the victim.

whereby

I turn now

to the case where

is financial
the part of
the means

if he genuinely
transfers his
reparation
who
then returns
(some part of) the gift
some

or restitution

of compensation
provision
W plays no role and T is not concerned
with helping V who has been harmed

in the
third party
(T) is involved
case
to V. I begin with
the
where

with W's
by W's

;T is solely concerned
Here T can help
wrongdoing.
wishes

him with goods and/or

the intention
services, with
by providing
of restoring
the status quo or compensating
him, in full or in part. Has T
to V? We may have conflicting
intuitions here. On the one
made
reparation
the victim

is repair. He
that repairs or restores, on this
the root of reparation
On the other hand, we may feel that
has thus made
construal,
reparation.

hand,

to describe what
is being done as reparation
carries with
it an assumption
the victim
is responsible
for the harm
is compensating
that the person who
as
case
one
act
one
in which
of restitution
may prefer to describe T's
simply
or compensation.
Thus we have a Criminal
Board,
Injuries Compensation
rather
this

than a Reparations
is a misnomer).

title

on

Board

I have

(though

Fortunately,
this issue.3

for

heard

the purposes

it argued
that even
of my argument,

hangs
nothing
in cases where W does play some part,
We are mainly
however,
interested,
cases where T could be said to assist W
seem
in making
There
reparation.
to which W might
to be various possible degrees
be involved.
(For simplicity,
to cases where W is in no position
to make good the harm
discussion
or
T
all
and
the
done,
goods
provides
services.)
seek out T and ask him to compensate
V.
(1) W might
an
to
T
to
make
offer
W
for V, provided
(2)
might
provide
compensation
that W wishes
him to do so, and W might
that offer.
accept
I restrict

involvement
to
be even more minimal.
T may propose
however,
might,
or
to
have
W's
V
without
consulted.
W
act,
acted,
compensate
being
might
of this, express the wish to be associated with
the deed, and
then, on hearing
on T's intentions.
T might
agree. This case subdivides,
depending

W's

to associate
himself.
(3) T acted in the hope that W would wish
care
not
At
the
time
of
T
did
whether
W
would
later wish
(4)
acting,
associate
himself or not.
How

should we describe

of these four

cases?

In

the roles played by T and W

(2) T could be described

(1) and

respectively
as acting,

to

in each
in part,

3
If we take the view that a third party can provide
to the victim we can express this in
reparation
terms of our definition
'T' for ?W' in all its occurrences
in clause 3 and in its first
by substituting
occurrence
in clause 4.

DAVID

134

MCNAUGHTON

as W's agent, for he is only acting because W has

at least, because W wishes
I suggest, T
it. Here,
on
at
Ws
least, compensating
behalf. In
(or,
V)
on
W's
for
W's
wishes
behalf,
reparation
played

him to do so or,
requested
to V
is making
reparation
not
T
is
(4)
clearly
making
no place

to

in his decision

T might
be said to be prospectively
(3), however,
acting on W's
as
it
since
W
the
that
later
himself with
associate
were,
behalf,
might
thought
to act.
his act plays a role in his decision
act.

In

to V in any of these cases and, if so, in what

reparation
making
a causally
cases W's wishes
two
In
first
crucial
the
role, for
respect?
play
on his asking T, or on his accepting
T acts depends
T's offer to act.
whether
Is W

it seems reasonable

Here

to V. As

in the example
to determine

however,

to say that W does play a part inmaking

reparation
of paying
for the broken window
it is important,
in what,
his reparation
consists. Does
he
exactly,

or compensation
to V? No, T does that, for the goods or
are his. W's
to asking T to
role is restricted
reparative
provided
a
so.
or
to
He
T's
offer
do
V,
part in setting the
compensate
plays
accepting
restitution

provide
services

in motion,
but that is not to say that he compensates
process of compensation
of W's wishes,
V himself.
In the last two cases, where T acts independently
no
the reparation
himself with
W can do no more
than associate
; he makes
reparation
whatever
wishes.

All

himself.

reason, freely
IfW uses what
version

corresponding
makes
reparation
I turn

now

to

to V,
the

use

these cases are to be contrasted

gives money,
he has been

goods

with

or services

toW

one where
to do with

T, for
as he

to compensate
V then, as in the
given
window
case, it isW himself who alone
T's help.
he could not have done it without

of the broken
although
to which

Swinburne

wishes

to put

these

examples

of

Each of us has sinned

in his account
of the Atonement.
reparation
to
to
and
commands
live a good life. Each
in
God
His
his
obey
by failing
duty
to atone for his
needs
and
thus
God's
of us, therefore,
forgiveness
requires
in
God
those
have been nothing
sins. While
there would
wrong
forgiving
of reparation,
without
who sincerely
any requirement
repent and apologize,
assisted

this
and good that God expects
it is good that we do try to make
reparation
us. As we have seen, in expecting
from us before forgiving
reparation
to make
and giving us a chance
is taking our sins seriously
God
(partial)
who are already deeply
for sinful humans,
It is hard, however,
repayment.

much

we have)
to find any adequate
to God
(who gave us everything
can I give
owe
even of partial reparation.
when
I
you nothing
'Only
a
means
us
in the life
offers
such
God
however
just
something'
(p. 157).

indebted
means

you
and death

of Christ who, being God, owed God nothing. We can offer up to

'
to God,
and a laid-down
life
this sacrifice, of a lived life of obedience
our
on the Cross'
in
for
sins.
and
penance
reparation
(p. 152)
one possible
to this account,
before
Let me briefly deal with
objection
a situation
in which
the sinner
Swinburne
has described
whether
considering
saw earlier that there might
to
can be seen as making
God.
We
reparation

God

REPARATION
we

be cases where
obviously
whom we

someone

could wrong
if there were

the case

be

AND ATONEMENT

not harm.

without

a being

harming
to whom we

135
them. This

would

but
duties,
such a being.

owed

is just
that God
appear
cannot
be harmed.
two
for claiming
that God
There
First,
to humans
involves physical
harm
whereas
usually
injury or a loss of life,
can happen
none of these misfortunes
to God. Second,
liberty or possessions,
that
loss or harm
It is arguable,
is a perfect being.
God
however,
suffering
a
some good
who
has
lost
is incompatible
since
with remaining
being
perfect,
could

are

is in a worse
cannot

state

be harmed

not apply

It might

reasons

If God
the loss, and so can no longer be perfect.
of reparation
does
clause of my definition
to think that these
I am inclined
is inappropriate.

than before
then

the second

and

reparation
can be met. To

it can be replied
the first objection
that these are
objections
someone can be harmed.
two possible
not the only ways
in which
I mention
our
to
be
harm
in
sins
and
disobedience
said
God. First,
which
may
ways
a
our
of His projects.
Second,
they lead to the frustration
(at least for while)
sinfulness, and the unnecessary
to suffer. To the second
Him

suffering

to cause
it causes, might
be thought
can respond by pointing
out that
with His retaining His traditional

we

objection
in these ways
is compatible
harmed
etc. If this reply is unsatisfactory,
omniscience,
omnipotence,
perfections
to
there is an alternative
the
theist. He can deny my suggestion
response open
can be wronged
that someone
without
by tying the two
being harmed
is itself a way of being
and claiming
that to be wronged
together conceptually
being

harmed,

for which

summary
My
that what he has

reparation
of Swinburne's
in mind

is appropriate.
account
of the Atonement

makes

it clear

is a version

of
of two-party
assisted
reparation,
to provide an example. We have already
which
the glazier case was supposed
seen that such cases are
if
what
is offered
in reparation
by the
possible,
now
to
to
him
because
it
has
been
him
belongs
by the
wrongdoer
given
sense of the claim that God has given us the
victim. Can we, however, make
us to offer
as
life of Christ
in a manner
to Him
which
allows
it back
?
reparation
to have given us the gift of the life of
God can certainly
be understood
sense
to become man
in
that
the
in Christ and thereby
God
chose
Jesus
freely
offered us access to the truths that he taught and the inspiration
that his life
In this sense, however,
affords.
the gift of Christ's
life serves only as a
for an exemplary

not a distinctively
account
of
reparatory
case
in
the
the
consists,
two-party
Reparation
by
wrongdoer
as we have seen, in the offer of
are at the disposal
goods or services, which
to the person who has been wronged.
of the wrongdoer,
But God's
gift of
a
so
not
see
to
is
and
it
hard
of
is
how
property,
Jesus
gift
Jesus' good deeds
are at our disposal
to offer back to God. They
and wise words
cannot be
one
owner
or
to
in
transferred
from
the way that money
real estate
another,
foundation

the atonement.

can

be.

and

DAVID

136

MCNAUGHTON

It might
to dispose of as He wishes,
be objected
that Jesus'
life is God's,
to God. But, on this understanding
because
it is a life of service dedicated
of
to say that Christ's
itmeans
no
what
sense
life is (peculiarly)
makes
it
God's,
to suppose
that God might
give it to sinners to return to Him or not as they
In the sense

choose.

is dedicated

that person's
else.

to someone

dedicated

a life belongs
to the person
and cannot be made

in which

it remains

to whose
over

service

to others;

it
i.e.

to the fact that Jesus' deeds are God's

it help to appeal
deeds
because Jesus is God incarnate,
for in the sense in which
each person's deeds
are his own it does not make
sense for him to give them to others or for others
to offer them back to him. We
seem to have reached
an
we
impasse. What
Nor

will

are apparently
offered
'
is a transaction
aration
the sinner

by

account
in Swinburne's
of our act of supposed
rep?
'
in which nothing
is transacted. Nothing
is given up
is received
nothing
by God.

and

a further

in this account.
In the standard
difficulty
to
makes
the
case, if a wrongdoer
person wronged
reparation
by offering him
some particular
over to the person
benefit
then that benefit has been handed
to be offered again in
and is thus no longer available
for
wronged
reparation
or by another
another wrong
committed
either by the wrongdoer
himself
There

person.

is, moreover,

on

Yet,

this account

of

the Atonement,
Christ's
life is repeatedly
new
as
each
for his sins. It
up by
sinner,
reparation
to be made
to pay fresh
available
cheque were
repeatedly

to be offered

available,
is as if the same
debts.
Before

considering
account

variant

have

of

God,
That

aration.

Atonement

out of these difficulties,

which

as Christ

the matter

Swinburne

on the two-person
Himself
wronged,

will

is God Himself

model

offers.

let me

turn

to a

The

version

of assisted

reparation
us the means
of rep?
as
account.
main
he
But,
points out,
on
our
of
the
depend
Trinity.
understanding
I have just criticized
then the version
is the

as the person
is, I think, Swinburne's

how we describe
Insofar

way

possible

so far is based

described

in which

a
the

offers

God and the penitent.

But insofar
one; there are just two participants,
an
as Christ
we
can
account
is a distinct
from
God
which
is
present
being
or makes
closer to that in which a third person pays compensation
reparation
on our behalf.
to show that a
both accounts,
Swinburne
(In offering
hopes
correct

on any
is not dependent
for its coherence
of
the
On
Christ
'the
this
version,
understanding
Trinity.)
particular
gives
as
a
to
most valuable
he
has-his
life...
whose
benefits
God,
present
thing
our sin'
will flow to others'
(p. 152). He gives it 'for the purpose of removing
reparative

theory

of the atonement

of forgiveness
from it until we
'gain the benefit
it' (p. 153).
cases of assisted reparation
Of the four three-person
that we discussed
this
seems best to fit the third, though we should note a disanalogy
account

(p. 154) but we cannot

associate
ourselves with

between

it and

the case

I was

discussing

there, which

might

be

thought

to

AND

REPARATION

weaken

In the case of the Atonement,

order of reparation.
Standardly,

on our behalf.
temporal

137

can be seen as potentially

making
reparation
there is a reversal of the normal

that Christ

the claim

ATONEMENT

comes first, and the

the wrong
the punishment.
For those who

after, just as the crime precedes

reparation
at any rate, that order is reversed. The
live in the era after Christ's
death,
to atone.
to
it is meant
life
the sins for which
Christ's
God
of
gift
precedes

be fatal to the theory. It is true that one

may not, however,
disanalogy
someone until he has suffered a
cannot make
to, or compensate,
reparation
that T, foreseeing
involved him in a loss. But it seems possible
wrong which
a
to V, with
that it is likely that W will wrong V, might
benefit
the
provide

This

by W. Only
V become
himself

V for the anticipated

harm done to him
compensate
the wrong will T's act of benefiting
after W has in fact committed
an act of
him, and only after W has associated
compensating

that it should

intention

with

T's

act will

it be

the case

tially, acted on W's behalf.

If this account
of the Atonement
to my

discussed

that T

actually,

and not just poten?

cases I
the third of the three-person
to
it
be
describe
may
analysis,
acceptable
fits

then, according
on our behalf. But this will not help Swinburne's
as making
reparation
account
of the Atonement.
For what
is crucial for Swinburne's
reparative

Christ

is that we

account
with

should

be able

to describe

as himself

Christ's

the sinner, in associating

himself
cannot
Others
make
my
reparation.

deeds,
making
for me; only I can do that. I have to make
in
reparation myself,
a contribution
to the removal
order for it to make
of my guilt. As I have
to associate oneself with an act of reparation
is not to make
argued, however,
a
It is
oneself.
but not itself a re?
repentance,
reparation
sign of genuine
atonement

parative
account

act.

Christ's

life.

I conclude

in which

In response

the

to earlier

that, in his book,

sinner can be seen

The

patent
4
here.
very

offered

reparation

an

through

from
account

I shall state why,

in my
I have raised.

to be

in
transferred,
of the Atonement.
After

them

opinion,

this new

formulation

the difficulties

can be owned, not in the way that

such deeds can give one
but in the sense that performing
as
a
or
new
a book gives you
when
rights,
inventing
drug
writing
or
can
to another.
These
then
be
transferred
rights
copyright.
rights

initial point
real estate is owned,
certain

not

of these objections,
Swinburne
has offered,
an illuminating
elaboration
and development
of
to meet my central
in his book.4 What
he offers,
to show how it is possible
for good deeds
designed

is an account
objection,
to be owned,
and for the benefits
accruing
a way
sense of a reparative
that will make
his view

has

versions

in private
correspondence,
the account
he offered

summarizing
fails to meet

Swinburne
as making

I am most

to make

is that deeds

to him both for the points that follow and for kind permission
to reproduce
them
grateful
I have tried to put the case in my own words as far as possible but, inevitably, my wording
is often
close to his.

DAVID

138

MCNAUGHTON

us close
to issues in the
which
following
example,
brings
cause
to raise money
for my favourite
I decide
Atonement.5
good
by finding
I fall
gardens. Unfortunately,
people who will sponsor me to dig old people's
for me. The sponsors agree that
ill and someone
else offers to do the digging
the

Consider

deed I gain the

they will pay up if she digs instead of me. By her benevolent
own
to
I
from
So
her
the
claim
the
money
sponsors.
good deed in the
right
accrue from it. Suppose,
sense that I own rights which
that my
however,
to
collect the sponsorship money. Her
benefactor
digs the gardens, but I omit
If I claim

has been wasted.

deed

benevolent

as the good cause,

The broken window

well

for I ensure
case

that her

can also be amended

the parent does not give

certified by the bank and made
that

Suppose
cheque
is taken

the money
then I benefit her as
efforts were not in vain.
a similar

to make

point.
an ordinary
cheque but a
to the glazier,
the cost of which

the child
out

account
at the time the cheque
out. The
ismade
the parent's
not
to
and will
the window,
will be lost to the parent,
go
money
repairing
to
unless the child hands it over to the glazier. The child thus has the power
or
to
if
to
which
makes
it
for
he
fail
the
use,
use,
him,
possible
good deed,
from

to make

chooses,

reparation

the parent's
bringing
We can now make
have

seen, God
which we ought
from our position

to

the parent
by
back into currency.

conferring

the benefit

of

money
use of these points in explicating
the Atonement.
As we
has given us the gift of life but we have failed to live the lives

are in no position
to make
reparation
a sinless
as
to
agrees
accept
reparation
the
intention
of
it
lived
with
that
is
human
life, provided
making
reparation
for the sins of others. God gives the life to us in the sense that he gives us the
that flow from it, as if we had lived that life
the benefits
right to claim
Each of us is now faced with a choice: he can either use Christ's
ourselves.
case both God and Christ
it was given, in which
life for the purpose for which
or he can fail to use it and waste Christ's
are benefited,
sacrifice. Moreover,
for a
since
best
the
is peculiarly
this form of benefit
reparation
appropriate,
a
is
gift well-used.
gift ill-used
to meet my objection
This account
by offering not only a sense
attempts
lived, and we
God
of indebtedness.

to have

life but also a sense in which we

in which God can give us the gift of Christ's
can give it back to God and thus provide
by providing
reparation
genuine
not otherwise
has
Swinburne
receive.
Him with a benefit which He would
is well used,
is given for a specific good purpose
shown that, if a gift which
a benefit on the giver;
to use it
failure
then its good use bestows
similarly,
harms

him

by wasting

his effort

and

the analogy
of the
again and again by
can be offered
to many

sacrifice. Moreover,
life can be offered

how Christ's
dig explains
sponsored
the same deed
sinner in turn. Clearly,
each repentant
a
to
also be possible
it
would
but
claim
donation,
sponsors
5

I have

closer.

altered

his example

slightly

in order,

I hope,

to make

the connection

for a sponsor
with

the Atonement

to
even

AND

REPARATION

accept
many,
would

ATONEMENT

139

one benevolently
in for the deeds of
deed as standing
substituted
so that each of those who had failed to perform
deed
the sponsored
gain the right to claim the benefit from the sponsor in virtue of the one
act.

substituted

this account

Although
isfactory.
to whom.

is neat

To show this, we need

it is instructive
Here

it is, I shall argue, unsat?

and ingenious
to get quite clear as to who is offering what
to compare
this account
of the Atonement

since he has
of the sponsored dig. First, the sinner benefits,
the example
to claim
of
the
because
benevolent
Christ's
substitution,
right,
given
to
be reconciled with God. Contrast
this with
the
of his sins and
forgiveness

with

been

case of the sponsored

receives
the proceeds

rather than I, that

charity,
dig; here it ismy favourite
I
from the sponsors,
benefit
because
though
indirectly
as
I care about
in
is benefited.
the
Second,
dig, my
sponsored
who
is in this case Christ,
is benefited
since his sacrifice was not

a charity

benefactor,
in vain. This

is not

to say, of course, that if I, and indeed every other sinner,

the
Christ achieved
offer, that his life will have been worthless.
foolishly reject
on
a
earth and lived
many good things while
morally
perfect life. Our refusal
to take advantage
of his sacrifice would mean,
that he achieved
less
however,
a
on
to
such
than
he
do.
this
refusal
would
account,
Indeed,
good
hoped
mean
that his primary mission would have been frustrated. As I have argued,
in claiming
issue is whether,
the right won for him by
some benefit
not
is conferring
upon God, which would
can be regarded as the sinner's
be conferred,
and which
reparative

the third and

Christ,
otherwise

crucial

the sinner

contribution.
we must not say that the benefit
I insisted in my earlier objection,
that
a
are offering
to God is Christ's perfect
not
benefit
which
He
would
life,
as
ours
otherwise
I have argued, Christ's
to give or
receive. For,
life is not
as a benefit.6 What
we can do, as we have just seen, is to make
withhold
As

we

a good consequence
not otherwise
which
it would
have, by
was
not
in
And
that
that
his
sacrifice
vain.
can,
ensuring
good consequence
as we shall shortly see, also be viewed as benefiting
God. This point may be
obscured
if we fail to distinguish
to God
the sinner is offering
between what
as the token by which he claims his right to forgiveness
and the benefit which

Christ's

life have

to God as reparation.
is offering
to God
with
all
its
life,
good deeds,
mean
not
that
but
does
forgiveness,

he

Christ's
6

life as a benefit.

The

sinner

as the token

offers
in virtue

the whole
of which

of Christ's
he claims

that God

(In the sponsored

is receiving
from the sinner all
I
the
offer
dig
good deeds of the

I stress this in the context of Swinburne's

to the view I have
theory because he does seem committed
In his book he says we can offer Christ's
to have led (our
life to God
'as the life we ought
rejected.
'
substitute reparation
and penance)
in his letter
(p. 154; see also the top of p. 155). More clearly, perhaps,
to me he suggests that 'God is benefited
life substituted
for a bad one'.
by the living of a good human
These ways of putting
the matter may well rest on confusing
the two kinds of offering
the offering of
a token to claim a right and the
of a benefit
I am trying to keep separate
in this
which
offering
paragraph.

DAVID

I40

MCNAUGHTON

to claim my reward. But that does not mean

to the sponsors
that
those good deeds from me as a benefit which would
the sponsors are receiving
accrue
to them.) I cannot offer Christ's morally
not otherwise
life to
perfect
can
a
I do
subtract
for he has already
lived it, and nothing
God as
benefit,
in the charity dig has already done the good deeds
from it. (My substitute
substitute

of digging
holding
How
was

not

take

in vain?

person
Himself

The

is a benefit

I have

neither

the power

of with?

that Christ's
sacrifice
by the sinner ensuring
we
on whether
nature of the answer depends

precise
as our
case of assisted
or the three-person
reparation
have told the story it best fits the three
As I, following
Swinburne,
case. But it can be turned into a two-person
in which God
version,
to forgive
the life we failed to live, and promises
lives for us, in Christ,

the

model.

the gardens
; that
or bestowing.)
can God be benefited

two-person

In the two-person
the right He has earned on our behalf.
his sacrifice,
Christ by not wasting
version
the sinner, in benefiting
thereby
the
is
Himself
in
made
God
for
it
benefits
who,
God,
Christ,
necessarily
sacrifice.
a little more
We
In the three-person
version
complicated.
things are only
seen that, where God has left the fulfilment
of His purposes
have already
(at
then He can be harmed
in the hands of others,
least partially)
by having
us

if we

those
God's
much

claim

of
them fulfilled. One
and benefited
frustrated
purposes
by having
as
aims is that each of us should live morally
good lives and achieve
as we can. If my claiming my right means
that (part
in
world
the
good

more
and that his life achieved
sacrifice was not wasted
of) Christ's
good
that
done
then
than it would
have
otherwise
my claiming my right promotes
can
now
see
that the
and so benefits
him. We
of God's
purpose
particular
to me of
flows from my claiming my right, the benefit
other benefit which
being forgiven,
another
of His

could

be

to God.
Since
of as being also of benefit
thought
should atone for their sins and be
is that humans

purposes
that purpose
to Him
then my acceptance
promotes
we are considering
the two-person
I believe, whether

reconciled

also

holds,

or

; and this
the three

has shown that the sinner's act of

of the story. So Swinburne
not
confer
benefits
his
does
upon God, benefits which would
claiming
right
now
is
that
the
I shall
have been conferred. What
otherwise
argue, however,
either of these benefits, as thereby making
sinner cannot be seen, in bestowing

person

version

an act of reparation
The person who

to God.
has

been

wronged

has

the right, as we have

seen,
has been made. The wrongdoer,

to

until (some) reparation

forgiveness
and to attain the forgiveness
of, and
turn, seeks to atone for his wrong
there
Now
the
reconciliation
with,
person by offering
reparation.
wronged
to God is one example, where
the
can be cases, of which
the sinner's relation
to
a
not
the
benefit
constitute
would
of the wrongdoer
only
forgiveness

withhold
in his

wrongdoer

but

also

to

the person

wronged,

who

wishes

to forgive

the

AND

REPARATION

to him. But

to be reconciled

and

wrongdoer

ATONEMENT

141

that benefit

is not one which

the

can offer

in reparation.
The person wronged
has made forgiveness
wrongdoer
on the offering of some benefit
conditional
there?
in reparation
; he cannot,
a
as
a
which
that
benefit
fulfilment
of
fore, coherently
condition,
accept
the wrongdoer,
since his forgiveness
flows from his forgiving
of the wrongdoer
is itself to be a consequence
in the case that interests
of which

consequence

ofthat

condition
I should

that

us,
He will

forgive me,

being fulfilled. The suggestion,

as
offer to God,
in
reparation
the benefit of His forgiving me is

circular.

hopelessly
If I cannot

as reparation,
the benefits
that flow to Him from
in reparation
the benefits
that flow to Him

to God,

offer

can

my being forgiven,
from Christ's
sacrifice

I offer
not

same circularity
The
afflicts
this
being wasted?
is Christ's
life made
better by my claiming
the
which
fulfils
his
in
my
purpose
By
being forgiven,

as the first. How

suggestion
right he has won
the

making
sacrifice
him,

for me?

in order

and

thus
Since

forgiven.

in the first

sacrifice
that

that Christ made

the
For, given
accrues
be forgiven,
to
then the benefit
that

I might

to God,
is a direct
it is a benefit which

place.
and

necessary
is an immediate

it cannot, without
be offered
circularity,
I will be forgiven.
of which
consequence
to show that the
So far I have been
trying

forgiven,

Atonement
Atonement

is not
must

coherent.

But

surmount.

To

of my
of my

being

consequence
being
as a
by me in reparation,

reparation
theory of the
the only hurdle a theory of the
such a theory must
have
acceptable,

this is not
be

to see why God would

have provided
explanatory
can
for our redemption
in this particular
It
do
this
if it makes
way.
only
sense. I now wish
even
to argue
if
moral
the
kind
of
that,
theory we have
struc?
been examining
is coherent,
there are several problems with
its moral
on its moral
ture which
cast severe doubt
The
adequacy.
disanalogies
power;

between

standard

concerned
has

with

here

we must

consequence

cases

be able

case we are
of reparation
and the very unusual
the theory of its moral point. What
the theory
to require reparation,
as
God
should have chosen

evacuate

to do is to show why
as repentance
and apology,

from us when

He knew we could not provide

in Christ, would
the sacrifice Himself.
have to make
it, so that He,
saw earlier that it may be right for a person who has been
We
wronged
to insist on reparation
to trivialize
because he does not wish
the wrong;
he

well

it seriously. As we also saw, in the paradigm

case of reparation
this is a reasonable
goal, since the wrongdoer
supplies the
at
cost
and
to
himself.
It
some, perhaps
considerable,
reparation
personally
is the extra cost to him, over and above
and apology,
that
repentance
betokens
the seriousness with which he is trying to put things right and work
off his guilt. But in the case where
the sinner claims his right to forgiveness
as a result of Christ's
reparative work, what does it cost the sinner, over and
in genuine
above what is already
involved
and apology? Nothing
repentance

wishes

the wrongdoer

to take

DAVID

I42

MCNAUGHTON

himself with
simply has to associate
oneself with a sacrifice that has already

whatever.

He

a deed

already done. But

been made,
though good,
over and above what
is already

associating
is not an act that carries much

moral weight,
in repentance
and apology.
It certainly
does not carry the moral
a
on
that
the part of the sinner carries. But if it does not carry
sacrifice
weight
case carries,
the moral weight
that reparation
in the standard
then there is
involved

no reason

for God

of Christ,

and

to require
so the theory

it, especially
fails to give

in view of what
it costs
a satisfying
explanation

in the life
of God's

it.
requiring
The proponent

of the reparation
the
theory may reply that, though giving
no
a
cost
to
the
it
is
and
in
thus
sinner, yet
gift
costly gift,
it, the sinner shows that he takes the sin seriously. But this point does
giving
not seem to advance matters.
someone
The giving of a costly gift, which
else
to God

involves

or otherwise
about the seriousness
of the
for, in itself reveals nothing
to
to
costs
his sin. Since
it
give it may be given as
giver's attitude
nothing
as can an empty apology,
and with as little meaning.
casually
theorist
the
himself
may suggest that associating
Alternatively,
reparation
extra cost, for it
the sinner in a considerable
with Christ's
life does involve
has paid

a commitment

involves

that involves.

It does

to live a life as like Christ's

such a commitment,
is a cost over and above

involve

as possible, with
but it is a mistake

all that
to think

in
that already
involved
to
to
the
and apology. To think otherwise
is
commitment
repentance
ignore
is built into genuine
commitment
That
is espe?
reform, which
repentance.7
case
in
the
of
where
one's
whole
life
has
been
misused
sin,
cially far-reaching
cost of attempting
So the very considerable
and must be changed.
complete
that

this commitment

to be sincere,
is already present
in the act of repentance
which,
a
to do everything
to live the sort of life
must
involve
determination
possible
us to live, namely
the sort of life Christ
lived on earth.8
God wishes
an ordinary
to
This brings me to a second disanalogy
between
attempt
atone for wrongdoing
and the case of atoning
for sin. In the ordinary
case,
reformation

to another human, we may feel

specific wrong
to repent and apologize
is required because
is not, after all,
that reparation
to make
to do so very much.
Failure
would
be an
normally
reparation
to
atone
for
If we
of not wishing,
indication
my wrong.
sufficiently
seriously,

where

fail

I have

to make

sins more
7

some

to God
because we are
it is not, however,
reparation
but because
little, and so not taking our sins seriously enough,
we do we shall not escape from
so that whatever
so much,

unaided

doing so very
we owe Him
indebtedness.

committed

that the genuine

It is unclear,
indeed,
penitent
has in apologising
and
than he already
seriously

could

take his

dedicating

his

notes on pp. 82f.

believe
it, and repent. Those who repent
only of those who have heard the Gospel,
either to follow Christ's example or to offer Christ
without
having heard it are, of course, in no position
to repentance
as reparation
I suggest, at the end of the paper, that full repentance
in addition
and apology.
may only be possible for those who accept Christ.
8

As Swinburne
I am talking

AND

REPARATION

ATONEMENT

143

to
service. God does not need to give us the opportunity
future life to God's
as well
in order for us to be able to take our sin seriously.
make
reparation
that
this point, but still maintain
concede
theorist might
The reparation
we
are
sense
because
makes
moral
for reparation
the demand
thereby
enabled,
through Christ's
that we could not otherwise

to confer a considerable
benefit on God
sacrifice,
to do a service
So we are enabled
have conferred.

also fails. For there can be cases

in our power. This defence
a
not otherwise
have
someone
benefit we would
enables us to confer

not otherwise
where

to confer

been

able

case

is intentional

and yet his action is, overall, morally

pointless. One such
an end
someone
to achieve
If
sacrifice.
seeks
unnecessary

a considerable
that end could have been achieved
sacrifice, when
by making
even if
then that sacrifice was unnecessary,
that sacrifice,
just as well without
the good end. Swinburne
holds that
it did achieve
it was not in vain because
God

to demand

did not have

case

someone

that

would

reparation,
to make
have

and

so did not have

a sacrifice

to make

it the

were

to be

if sinners

that requirement,
that, once He had imposed
to the sacrifice. But it would
sinners responding

It is true

forgiven.
flow
would

from

to impose that requirement

pointless
ifHe
that flows from a used sacrifice,
it. Once

without

it has

just
could

so that

there

have

achieved

that we

been

have

could

been

the benefit

just the same end

shown all the moral

accepted
that we can in sincerely repenting,
atoning
is pointless.
then the sacrifice
trying to reform,
I want
has been entirely negative.
So far my argument
about

seriousness

be

a benefit
have

apologising

and

to end by briefly
which
of
the
Swinburne
the
Atonement,
theory
exemplary
suggesting
can incorporate
as
which
the central features
he thinks
regards
inadequate,
in any account
he tried to
of the Atonement,
features which
desirable
in
the
capture,
theory.
unsuccessfully,
reparation
is one of a number
of accounts
The reparation
theory of the Atonement
that

are sometimes

transaction'
theories, in which Christ's
'objective
our guilt which
to removing
contribution
life and death make an 'objective
we ourselves were
to make'
Other
in no position
theories of this
(p. 162).
the penal substitution,
kind include
ransom, and victory over evil theories.
which

called

to the exemplary
in which
theory of the atonement
us
remove
our
to
to
sins by inspiring
work
penitence
other
transaction
and good acts' (p. 162). Swinburne
objective
rightly rejects
on the grounds
accounts
moral
that each relies on an inadequate
outlook,

stand in contrast
They
'
Christ's
life and death

I have been arguing,

in the
power.
explanatory
that the reparation
second part of this paper,
theory labours under similar
are left, therefore, with
the exemplary
difficulties. We
theory.
account
I take it that, for Swinburne,
of the Atonement
any satisfactory

which

undermines

should

have

life and

death

secondly,

how

at least

their

these

two features.

Firstly,
contribution

an objective
enables
that contribution

make

it should

show how Christ's

our guilt and,

to removing
us to take our sins seriously in a way

DAVID

144

MCNAUGHTON

our sins seriously

at least two
involves
helps us to atone. Taking
the full depth and consequences
elements. The first is realizing
of our sin and
we can to remove
the second
is doing whatever
those consequences.
The

which

theory concentrates
the first, as a means

reparation
can stress

only stress the inspirational

to us the seriousness
home

on the second

of these ; the exemplary

The exemplary
theory

to the second.

life but also show that it brings

power of Christ's
of our sin. Consider
of the
the example
again
to pay the glazier to mend
the cheque
the window.

parent who gives the child

I have argued
that we misconstrue
the moral
point if we attempt
as the parent helping
the child to make financial
But
reparation.
have

a moral

nonetheless.

point

theory
can not

The

parent

is bringing

to see this
the act can

to the child

home

the

In making
of his wrongdoing.
the child his agent by
consequences
to
him
the
is
the
the child, in a vivid
parent
demonstrating
giving
cheque
are
and
that
and memorable
there is a cost to
that
windows
valuable
way,
serious

can be seen as showing

the costs of human
sin. I have

in repairing
them. Similarly,
Christ's
in the most vivid way imaginable,
the believer,

death

be borne

in

as suffering as a result of human

sin. I further
made
In
this
fact
is
clear.
incarnation,
luminously
as
act
his
the Christian
of repentance,
part of
passion,

can see God

that we

suggested

the

that,
on Christ's

suggest

meditating
is forcefully

that his sin hurts not only humans

reminded
seem more difficult,
for the exemplary
It may
however,
an objective
contribution
life and death make
that Christ's

but

also God.

theory to allow
to the removal

to make.
the essence of
of our guilt, one which we are in no position
Surely
an exemplary
we
Christ
the
is
that
have to do
;
only provides
theory
example
all the atoning.
But this is to ignore the fact that the life and death of Christ
our guilt by giving
us a
an objective
can make
to removing
contribution
we
un?
and reformation
which
could not acquire
for repentance
capacity
can only fully repent of our sins, and thus be fully forgiven
and
to God,
sins we have committed.
ifwe are truly aware of just what
reconciled
in seeking forgiveness
Part of our difficulty
may be that we do not properly
that we can never,
of our acts. It is arguable
realise the moral nature of many
aided. We

a human
love
life of perfect
reason, become
fully aware of what
by natural
be like, and thus of just what kind of life God requires us to lead. We
would
nature
in Christ
in order to realise the complete
of God
need the revelation
of

the

life to which

we

are

called.

If that

then we
and reconciliation,
repentance
not for Christ's
life.9
redemptive

realization

could

not

is necessary

be fully

forgiven

for full
were

it

of Philosophy,
Department
University
of Keele,
Keele, Staffs

ST55BG
9

I am

Universities

to members
of the Philosophy
grateful
Swinburne,
and, above all, to Richard

at Georgia,
Keele
and Nottingham
Departments
on earlier drafts of this paper.
for helpful comments