Wright and Substitutionary Atonement

I know some people who, despite my protests, believe that Tom Wright does not believe in substitutionary atonement. I do not think they have read anything by him, but know that he is a little off the rails because he is a proponent of the NPP, even if they do not really understand what that is. However, I believe their main reason for their doubts about Tom Wright's theology of the cross, come from his enthusiastic endorsement of The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann (see posts by Al Mohler and Adrian Warnock). That book, I have no doubt repudiates the doctrine of Penal Substitution, although so far I have only read snippets.

I suspect that Wright endorsed it because of its strong advocacy of social action as necessary result of following Jesus, something that he passionately believes. Wright may therefore have been a bit naive about what most people would take out of it, but I doubt that. Rather I think the substitutionary atonement is just not a doctrine he holds very dear, although I think it may be more central to his thought than even he realises. I am on dangerous ground here as I do not know Tom Wright personally at all, and I have only read a handful of his books, but that is my preliminary impression.

Another problem that Wright creates for himself is that he tends to use different terminology and expressions to describe things than traditional Evangelicalism (or even wider Christianity) because he believes it slightly flawed. This also makes him seem further away from orthodoxy as we know it than he is. Because of these aspects of Wright's theology and writing, it is rare that you come across a passage you can quote as 'proof' that Wright believes in penal substitution (although I still have not seen him use that terminology, except in his Romans Commentary, if I remember correctly as I do not own it myself). However I did find this in his comments on Romans 3:25-26 in his for Everyone series:

God was obliged [an important word to note], in virtue of being the world's creator and judge, to act decisively with sin - which means to punish it [NB here sin is being punished, and the sinner is not in view, this description is not unusual for Wright]. Here we discover a further meaning in the idea of the 'place of mercy' in the previous sentence. The same root also refers to a 'propitiatory' [key word] sacrifice, that is, one which not only purifies people from sin but also turns away the wrath of God which would otherwise rightly fall on the sinner [NB not just the sin]. Though, again Paul does not spell out his meaning in any detail, there are all sorts of converging lines of thought which make it highly probable that he sees Jesus in this light as well, as the one upon whom the appropriate anger of God, directed against the sin of the world, has now fallen [again though it is sin and not the sinner which is the focus of God's anger]'God's righteous verdict against sinners has been meted out against the faithful Israelite, Israel's representative: the Messiah, Jesus.

(Paul for Everyone: Romans Part 1: Chapters 1-8, pp.57-58, London: SPCK)

Although this post is already quite long, I think it is also worth reproducing what he says on Romans 8:3:

The weight of the world's sin was focused on Israel; the weight of Israel's sin was focused on the Messiah. And the Messiah died a criminal's death, with 'King of the Jews' written above his head. At that moment, God condemned sin. He condemned sinHe‘in his flesh'. he had cornered it and condemned it. As the prophet had said, 'the punishment that brought us peace fell upon him; and with his stripes we are healed' (Isaiah 53:5).

Notice two things about the way Paul says this. He does not say that God condemned Jesus, but that he condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus.

(his italics, Paul for Everyone: Romans Part 1: Chapters 1-8, pp.138, London: SPCK)

Appendix (!)

The endorsment of the Lost Message of Jesus mentioned above runs as follows:

Steve Chalke's new book is rooted in good scholarship, but its clear punchy style makes it accessible to anyone and everyone. Its message is stark and exciting: Jesus of Nazareth was far more challenging in his own day, and remains far more relevant to ours, than the church has dared to believe, let alone preach.

The attraction of Wright to the book seems unconnected to any atonement theology. Although the acknowledgements thanks Wright for 'his time and considerable theological wisdom' although what how much of his 'wisdom' they used is unclear.