Introduction
'Atonement' may be defined as God's work on sinners' behalf to reconcile them to himself. It is the divine activity that confronts and resolves the problem of human sin so that people may enjoy full fellowship with God both now and in the age to come. While in one sense the meaning of atonement is as broad and diverse as all of God's saving work throughout time and eternity, in another it is as particular and restricted as the crucifixion of Jesus. For in the final analysis Scripture presents his sacrificial death as the central component of God's reconciling mercy. This explains why Revelation 22:3, for example, shows not only God but also the Lamb – slain to atone for sin – occupying the throne of heaven in the age to come.
Why is atonement needed? The Bible portrays a personal and loving yet righteous God who created a 'very good' world (Gen. 1:31, NIV). But human faithlessness plunged creation into a state of estrangement from him (Gen. 3). Human unrighteousness thus brought the punishment of divine curse (see Blessing/curse) (Gen. 3:14–19). Yet in God's great mercy, even his curse does not leave the world languishing in darkness. Latent in the curse is a ray of future redemptive light, the so-called Protoevangelion (Gen. 3:15; cf. Rom. 16:20, Heb. 2:14). The banishment of Adam and Eve from Eden underscores God's ultimately benevolent purpose (Gen. 3:22–23). He does not abandon his fallen creation; rather he moves to redeem and restore it. 'Atonement' is the saving act of God which according to Scripture makes possible, and in a sense constitutes, his redeeming and restoring work. It is the means by which his righteousness is re-established in a cosmic order marred temporarily by rebellion against its Creator and King.
In the NIV, the word 'atonement' occurs in the NT only three times (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 9:5). 'Atoning' occurs only twice (1 John 2:2; 4:10). But the thing denoted by the word is often present when the word itself is not. Hebrew words of the kpr word group (*cf. words translating exhiloskomai and cognates in the LXX) are widespread in the OT, the NIV translating a form of 'atone' some 112 times (Torah 96, Prophets 10, Writings 6). In the NT, atonement ideas are present with a wide range of words and their cognates, among them ransom, redemption, covenant, sacrifice, reconciliation and victory. These are dealt with in various connections below.
The Need for Atonement
Just as the Christian Scriptures assume the existence of God, they assume the sinful nature of humans since the fall. The programmatic NT statement 'all have sinned' (Rom. 3:23) is amply attested in the OT as well (*e.g. 1 Kgs. 8:46; 2 Chr. 6:36; Job 14:4; Ps. 14:1–3; Prov. 20:9; Eccles. 7:20). In intertestamental Judaism we find a number of sectarian strategies to address the widely acknowledged problem of personal and corporate guilt. The angel announces Jesus as the one who will 'save his people from their sin' (Matt. 1:21).
John the Baptist declared in effect that the whole Jewish population was cut off from its covenant God; only those who would repent and renew their hope in the coming kingdom could expect God's mercy on the day of judgment. From the Bible's point of view, if there was no hope for Abraham's descendants unless they cried out for divine assistance, the larger pagan world was far worse off. And this is exactly what Paul affirms: before their conversion the (non-Jewish) Ephesians were 'excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world' (Eph. 2:12). Jesus assumed the fallenness of those he encountered: 'If you, then, though you are evil … ' (Matt. 7:11). The apostles' zeal to take the gospel to the ends of the earth made sense only if they shared Jesus' conviction of his universal lordship. He commanded them to take the good news to all humanity, since everyone needed to hear and accept it in order to be saved (*cf. Rom. 10:14–15).
Alongside the conviction of humanity's condemnation is the certainty of divine judgment. God's wrath is not petty or capricious, but neither is it to be regarded as a barbaric legacy of unsophisticated antiquity. A profoundly disturbing subplot of the whole OT is impending (and sometimes unfolding) divine judgment, whether direct or indirect. This is seen in the Genesis flood, the ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues and defeat that befell the Egyptians, the destruction of Canaanite settlements, David's military conquests, and the divine punishment of God's own people at the hand of the Assyrians and later the Babylonians. And the NT counsels no lessening of vigilant readiness in the light of an imminent, great, and terrible Day of the Lord (*e.g. Matt. 24:44; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; Rev. 22:7, 12). God's verdict on human rebellion against himself is symbolized by the blackness that covered the whole land in the hour of Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:44).
Humanity's abject and seemingly incurable spiritual separation from God, and God's inexorable movement to 'bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil' (Eccles. 12:14), are twin truths seen in the unfolding biblical history of redemption. They are also the foundations for an understanding of the biblical doctrine of atonement. They pose the problem to which God responded with both OT and NT atoning sacrifice.
The Means of Atonement: Old Testament
Many OT passages speak of atonement in terms of the sacrifice and offering up of the blood of a suitable victim. The people's inadvertent sin, which deserved death, could be atoned for through the death of a prescribed animal duly chosen and offered in their place. (The system did not make explicit provision for brazen or 'high-handed' sin.) From the Torah's point of view, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' (Heb. 9:22). At the onset of the Mosaic era, 'Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded."' (Lev. 9:7). Aaron's disobedience to this mandate was on pain of death (Lev. 8:35). The destruction of Nadab and Abihu illustrated this (Lev. 10:1–2). Sacrifice to atone for sins was at the heart of the religious system which God instituted for his people and as a witness to the surrounding world.
The prophets understood that atonement did not amount to a bribe offered to God in exchange for forgiveness. God says disparagingly of Israel, 'They offer sacrifices given to me … but the LORD is not pleased with them' (Hos. 8:13). Micah's sarcasm is palpable: 'With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' (Mic. 6:6–7). Sacrifice as nothing more than a ritual act did not excuse transgression. Rather it was to be the expression of a contrite heart, and appealed to God for the mercy that he and he only could provide: 'The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise' (Ps. 51:17). This was confirmed to Isaiah when the seraph announced the forgiveness of his sin, not because of Isaiah's religious act but by the atonement which God's angel provided: 'With [the live coal] he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."' (Is. 6:7). Throughout the OT, God provides the sacrifice and ensures the atoning efficacy of the ritual he prescribes: 'I have given [the blood of the sacrifice] to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar' (Lev. 17:11).
Expiation or Propitiation?
It has been argued (*e.g. by C. H. Dodd) that atonement should be understood as expiation for sin. 'Expiation' in this sense means 'cancellation' or 'dismissal'. God simply waives the threatened penalty for transgressions. R. Averbeck argues that there is good ground for understanding the piel Hebrew verb form of kpr, often translated as 'atone' or 'atonement', as denoting 'to wipe away, wipe clean, purge' (see e.g. Lev. 16:20, 33; Deut. 32:43; Dan. 9:24; Is. 47:11). He suggests that 'the underlying rationale of OT kpr was wipe away, not ransom' (*NIDOTTE 2, p. 708). Averbeck's lengthy discussion makes little mention of either divine wrath or human sinfulness, though these are prominent in the background of OT atonement passages.
Others point out that atonement seems rather to involve 'propitiation', the turning away of wrath by an offering. It does not merely expiate in the sense of dismissing sin; it propitiates in the sense of averting God's punishment. Linguistic work by L. Morris and others appears to have refuted the expiation theory as Dodd and his supporters have presented it. Recent Romans commentators like Moo, Mounce and Stott have upheld Morris' arguments, as have I. H. Marshall and others. Current Septuagint lexicography points in the same direction (J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, pp. 160–161).
The key to this discussion is the fact that since at least the Enlightenment the notion of a wrathful God has been widely rejected by many theologians. Dodd (*The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [London, 1932], p. 23) echoes the sentiments of F. Schleiermacher and A. Harnack (both of whom rejected not only a wrathful God but the whole OT as authoritative for Christians) in arguing that in Jesus' teaching, 'anger as an attitude of God to men disappears, and His love and mercy become all embracing'. Even in Paul, Dodd continues, the wrath of God describes not 'the attitude of God to man, but … an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe'. At a time when humanity has come to be seen as basically good, the concept of divine wrath seems obscene. The nobly intentioned affirmation of God's goodness and therefore of the absence of wrath from his being are of a piece with post-Christian theories of the innate innocence of humanity and the minimal significance of sin in human nature.
The danger of overemphasizing God's wrath does exist. But it hardly justifies the impossible programme of trying to expunge the attribute from the NT record. God's coming wrath is a persistent theme of Jesus' parables. In non-parabolic discourse Jesus spoke repeatedly of 'the fire of hell' (Matt. 5:22) and 'eternal fire' (Matt. 18:8). He urged his followers, 'Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell' (Luke 12:5). The double-edged nature of Jesus' ministry is well summarized in John 3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.' Those who reject God's righteousness become targets of his wrath (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26, 28; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Heb. 10:26–31; Rev. 19:11–21). God's wrath is not a minor or isolated biblical theme.
Atonement takes on its importance, urgency, and poignancy precisely because God's righteous judgment is coming upon humans and their unrighteous ways. Jesus' death not only expiates sin (wipes away its penalty); it also propitiates (turns away the wrath of) God's promised punishment of sin and sinners whose transgressions are not atoned for. In the current climate of scepticism about a wrathful God, the biblical view has recently received strong support from philosopher H. Cassirer, who persuasively calls Christians away from modern sentimentalism and back to the God of whom the prophets, apostles and Jesus spoke (*Grace and Law [Grand Rapids, 1988], pp. 99–107). Propitiation is not a peripheral but a vitally important implication of their references to atonement and its absolute necessity.
Shed Blood: Life or Death?
Debate also surrounds the exact meaning of Hebrew animal sacrifice with respect to atonement. (Some sacrifices were festive or devotional rather than penitential in nature; in such cases the notion of atonement was secondary or absent.) A time-honoured view is that certain atoning sacrifices (*e.g. the high priestly ritual of the Day of Atonement; cf. Lev. 16) carried substitutionary imagery; the sacrificial victim endures the (divine) punishment due to the sinner, enabling the sinner to go free. In recent times this view has been rejected as reading NT theology back into OT religion. Instead, it is proposed that the pouring out of blood symbolized the release of life. The life given up by the animal is somehow freed to provide life for the people who offer sacrifice.
Given that God commanded sacrifice as a means of avoiding the punishment of death (*e.g. Num. 18:32), and that wrongful sacrifice occasionally caused death by God's direct act (*e.g. Num. 16:35), it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that when intelligent worshippers in OT times presented animals for atoning ritual slaughter they understood their sacrifices to involve an element of substitution. 'The ritual retains the note of an objective guilt which can only be removed through sacrifice or substitution' (Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, p. 507). And while the sacrifice did result in life for the worshipper, this was not because poured out blood opened a fount of poured out life. If it did, we should expect a ritual in which the victim gave up only a cup, or perhaps a litre, of blood, not its very life. Rather it was because the shedding of blood leading to loss of life satisfied Yahweh's just demand that violation of his holy will results in death: 'The soul who sins … will die' (Ezek. 18:4; cf. Gen. 2:17). Shedding the blood (extinguishing the 'life'; cf. Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23) of the animal was required in exchange for sparing the life of the worshipper. The death (not only symbolized but actually experienced in the fatal shedding of blood) of a sacrificial victim was necessary for the benefit of the guilty. Such OT convictions are only intensified under the new covenant (Heb. 10:28–31). The release-of-life view is grounded in the modern West's exalted view of humanity and disapproval of a God who demands death for sin, but it lacks convincing support in biblical texts.
The Means of Atonement: New Testament
Jesus' death is consistently presented as an atoning sacrifice for sins. He fulfils (provides the basis for and completes) what OT sacrifices could grant only by way of anticipation. While Jesus' teachings and miracles are of obvious importance, the Gospels do not present them as the primary means of the salvation he offers. Jesus is 'Saviour' not in the sense of spiritual visionary or miraculous power broker but as sacrificial victim, the just for the unjust (1 Pet. 3:18), his life poured out a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).
There is no single definitive NT explanation of the atonement. Jesus is presented as having paid the penalty for sin (Rom. 3:25–26; 6:23; Gal. 3:13). He died in place of sinners so that they might become God's righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). He redeemed sinners through his blood (Eph. 1:7). He paid the price for sinners to go free (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). He won the victory over death and sin, sharing with believers the victory (1 Cor. 15:55–57) that he paraded in spectacular fashion by his cross (Col. 2:15). He put an end to the hostility between warring human factions, most notably Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14–18), with implications for all other ethnic divisions. His example of patient suffering according to God's will and the demands of his kingdom is a precedent for his people to follow (1 Pet. 2:21–23). Peter's statement captures well the means and importance of Jesus' ministry of atonement: 'He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed' (1 Pet. 2:24).
In the light of such passages the historic status of the cross as the symbol of the Christian faith is fitting. The cross is where Jesus died, and Jesus' sinless death is why sinners can have life. In NT parlance 'atonement' and 'cross' are very nearly synonymous.
The varied NT atonement language has given rise in church history to numerous theories of the atonement. Here 'theory' refers to how God accomplished atonement through the cross. Some have stressed the effect that the atonement has on those who believe in it. This has been called the moral influence view and is commonly attributed to Abelard (1070–1142). It has been popular in modern theological liberalism. It contains an element of truth, but taken alone it is inadequate to capture the depth and richness of NT statements. Others, from patristic times onwards, have stressed the victory over sin, death, and the devil (see Spiritual powers) that the atonement accomplished. Christ is conqueror. This theory, too, preserves an important truth, but like the moral influence view it is too limited in scope. In medieval times Anselm (1033–1109) proposed the so-called satisfaction theory: sin is such an affront to God that only one who is both God and man can remedy the problem. Like the other theories Anselm's has commendable aspects. But its focus is too restricted, in part because Anselm worked within the categories of philosophical reasoning with too little input from biblical theology. The same can be said of other theories proposed since.
The NT seems to give greatest direct support to the 'penal substitution' and 'sacrifice' theories. It is obvious throughout Scripture that God atones for sin via sacrifice. The problem with the theory lies in explaining how sacrifice saves. No universally accepted answer has been advanced, despite the impressive range of biblical texts using sacrificial terminology. Among these are passages referring to Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant, a covenant sealed with his blood (*e.g. Matt. 26:28 par.). This implies (self-) sacrifice. So do numerous other, often overlooked, references to Jesus' 'blood' denoting his (sacrificial) death for sin (*e.g. Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; 1 Pet. 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 12:11). The prominence of sacrificial language or imagery elsewhere in the NT, whether in the Gospels (Jesus' passion predictions and the passion narrative itself), in Paul (*e.g. Rom. 3:24–26; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2), or throughout Hebrews (passim), argues strongly for the centrality of sacrifice to NT atonement teaching. One reason for scepticism towards sacrifice theories is perhaps the view, held by many biblical scholars, that Jesus was no more than human. If this is so, and Jesus was at best perhaps a martyr, why should his death, even granting that he intended it somehow to be for others, be any more significant than the deaths of other people for their fellow humans? On the other hand, if Jesus truly was God incarnate, sent by the Father to achieve a goal determined in eternity (*cf. Rev. 13:8: 'slain from the creation of the world'), there is no reason why his death could not bear the atoning significance that biblical language invests in it.
The penal substitution view is likewise strongly supported by numerous biblical authors (*cf. e.g. allusions to Isaiah 53 in various NT passages) and was advanced aggressively by the Reformers. It asserts that atonement primarily involves Jesus' taking the sinner's place ('substitution') in bearing the penalty (hence 'penal') for his or her sin. That penalty was no less than God's wrath and the sinner's death. Various objections have been lodged against this theory, especially in modern times by theologians who disapprove of a God who is not only loving but wrathful and who not only pours out blessing but exacts penalties for transgressions. Yet this view, carefully and positively formulated, is indispensable to an accurate intepretation of the dominical and apostolic witness.
The Scandal of the Atonement
There are continual challenges to the biblical theology of atonement sketched above. Recently M. Winter (*The Atonement, pp. 1, 116, 124) has argued that the crucifixion was, in fact, unnecessary. All humans must do to be reconciled to God is ask sincerely. Moral conversion is enough. For his part, Jesus 'atoned' for sin by asking God for this favour. 'Basically nothing more or less is required for the atonement' than Jesus' intercession (Winter, Atonement, p. 90). R. Funk (*Honest to Jesus [San Francisco, 1996], p. 312) forthrightly demands the abandonment of the doctrine of atonement through the shedding of blood; it is time to 'give Jesus a demotion' (*ibid., p. 306). Other accounts of the meaning of atonement resort to martyrdom as chief explanatory category, or seek to replace 'atonement' with 'incarnation' or 'resurrection' as the essential core of Jesus' saving work, or understand 'atonement' in terms of primarily revelatory rather than propitiatory work. In this latter view salvation comes as human ignorance is dispelled, not as human sin is dealt with via the sacrificial death of God's own Son. The similarity to ancient Gnosticism is remarkable.
It is no surprise that the biblical writers' view of atonement causes consternation in the so-called postmodern climate. It has always called forth reactions ranging from polite rejection to rage. Atonement – the cross – has long been scandalous. Yet in different cultures around the world many continue to embrace the biblical witness, as Christians always have. The doctrine of the atonement retains its dramatic force and explanatory power as a summary of what Jesus came to earth to do (Heb. 10:9–10).
See also: FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION; REDEMPTION; SACRIFICE; SALVATION.
New dictionary of biblical theology. 2001 (T. D. Alexander & B. S. Rosner, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
--
Regards,
Ryan Chia
'Atonement' may be defined as God's work on sinners' behalf to reconcile them to himself. It is the divine activity that confronts and resolves the problem of human sin so that people may enjoy full fellowship with God both now and in the age to come. While in one sense the meaning of atonement is as broad and diverse as all of God's saving work throughout time and eternity, in another it is as particular and restricted as the crucifixion of Jesus. For in the final analysis Scripture presents his sacrificial death as the central component of God's reconciling mercy. This explains why Revelation 22:3, for example, shows not only God but also the Lamb – slain to atone for sin – occupying the throne of heaven in the age to come.
Why is atonement needed? The Bible portrays a personal and loving yet righteous God who created a 'very good' world (Gen. 1:31, NIV). But human faithlessness plunged creation into a state of estrangement from him (Gen. 3). Human unrighteousness thus brought the punishment of divine curse (see Blessing/curse) (Gen. 3:14–19). Yet in God's great mercy, even his curse does not leave the world languishing in darkness. Latent in the curse is a ray of future redemptive light, the so-called Protoevangelion (Gen. 3:15; cf. Rom. 16:20, Heb. 2:14). The banishment of Adam and Eve from Eden underscores God's ultimately benevolent purpose (Gen. 3:22–23). He does not abandon his fallen creation; rather he moves to redeem and restore it. 'Atonement' is the saving act of God which according to Scripture makes possible, and in a sense constitutes, his redeeming and restoring work. It is the means by which his righteousness is re-established in a cosmic order marred temporarily by rebellion against its Creator and King.
In the NIV, the word 'atonement' occurs in the NT only three times (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 9:5). 'Atoning' occurs only twice (1 John 2:2; 4:10). But the thing denoted by the word is often present when the word itself is not. Hebrew words of the kpr word group (*cf. words translating exhiloskomai and cognates in the LXX) are widespread in the OT, the NIV translating a form of 'atone' some 112 times (Torah 96, Prophets 10, Writings 6). In the NT, atonement ideas are present with a wide range of words and their cognates, among them ransom, redemption, covenant, sacrifice, reconciliation and victory. These are dealt with in various connections below.
The Need for Atonement
Just as the Christian Scriptures assume the existence of God, they assume the sinful nature of humans since the fall. The programmatic NT statement 'all have sinned' (Rom. 3:23) is amply attested in the OT as well (*e.g. 1 Kgs. 8:46; 2 Chr. 6:36; Job 14:4; Ps. 14:1–3; Prov. 20:9; Eccles. 7:20). In intertestamental Judaism we find a number of sectarian strategies to address the widely acknowledged problem of personal and corporate guilt. The angel announces Jesus as the one who will 'save his people from their sin' (Matt. 1:21).
John the Baptist declared in effect that the whole Jewish population was cut off from its covenant God; only those who would repent and renew their hope in the coming kingdom could expect God's mercy on the day of judgment. From the Bible's point of view, if there was no hope for Abraham's descendants unless they cried out for divine assistance, the larger pagan world was far worse off. And this is exactly what Paul affirms: before their conversion the (non-Jewish) Ephesians were 'excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world' (Eph. 2:12). Jesus assumed the fallenness of those he encountered: 'If you, then, though you are evil … ' (Matt. 7:11). The apostles' zeal to take the gospel to the ends of the earth made sense only if they shared Jesus' conviction of his universal lordship. He commanded them to take the good news to all humanity, since everyone needed to hear and accept it in order to be saved (*cf. Rom. 10:14–15).
Alongside the conviction of humanity's condemnation is the certainty of divine judgment. God's wrath is not petty or capricious, but neither is it to be regarded as a barbaric legacy of unsophisticated antiquity. A profoundly disturbing subplot of the whole OT is impending (and sometimes unfolding) divine judgment, whether direct or indirect. This is seen in the Genesis flood, the ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues and defeat that befell the Egyptians, the destruction of Canaanite settlements, David's military conquests, and the divine punishment of God's own people at the hand of the Assyrians and later the Babylonians. And the NT counsels no lessening of vigilant readiness in the light of an imminent, great, and terrible Day of the Lord (*e.g. Matt. 24:44; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; Rev. 22:7, 12). God's verdict on human rebellion against himself is symbolized by the blackness that covered the whole land in the hour of Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:44).
Humanity's abject and seemingly incurable spiritual separation from God, and God's inexorable movement to 'bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil' (Eccles. 12:14), are twin truths seen in the unfolding biblical history of redemption. They are also the foundations for an understanding of the biblical doctrine of atonement. They pose the problem to which God responded with both OT and NT atoning sacrifice.
The Means of Atonement: Old Testament
Many OT passages speak of atonement in terms of the sacrifice and offering up of the blood of a suitable victim. The people's inadvertent sin, which deserved death, could be atoned for through the death of a prescribed animal duly chosen and offered in their place. (The system did not make explicit provision for brazen or 'high-handed' sin.) From the Torah's point of view, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' (Heb. 9:22). At the onset of the Mosaic era, 'Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded."' (Lev. 9:7). Aaron's disobedience to this mandate was on pain of death (Lev. 8:35). The destruction of Nadab and Abihu illustrated this (Lev. 10:1–2). Sacrifice to atone for sins was at the heart of the religious system which God instituted for his people and as a witness to the surrounding world.
The prophets understood that atonement did not amount to a bribe offered to God in exchange for forgiveness. God says disparagingly of Israel, 'They offer sacrifices given to me … but the LORD is not pleased with them' (Hos. 8:13). Micah's sarcasm is palpable: 'With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' (Mic. 6:6–7). Sacrifice as nothing more than a ritual act did not excuse transgression. Rather it was to be the expression of a contrite heart, and appealed to God for the mercy that he and he only could provide: 'The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise' (Ps. 51:17). This was confirmed to Isaiah when the seraph announced the forgiveness of his sin, not because of Isaiah's religious act but by the atonement which God's angel provided: 'With [the live coal] he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."' (Is. 6:7). Throughout the OT, God provides the sacrifice and ensures the atoning efficacy of the ritual he prescribes: 'I have given [the blood of the sacrifice] to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar' (Lev. 17:11).
Expiation or Propitiation?
It has been argued (*e.g. by C. H. Dodd) that atonement should be understood as expiation for sin. 'Expiation' in this sense means 'cancellation' or 'dismissal'. God simply waives the threatened penalty for transgressions. R. Averbeck argues that there is good ground for understanding the piel Hebrew verb form of kpr, often translated as 'atone' or 'atonement', as denoting 'to wipe away, wipe clean, purge' (see e.g. Lev. 16:20, 33; Deut. 32:43; Dan. 9:24; Is. 47:11). He suggests that 'the underlying rationale of OT kpr was wipe away, not ransom' (*NIDOTTE 2, p. 708). Averbeck's lengthy discussion makes little mention of either divine wrath or human sinfulness, though these are prominent in the background of OT atonement passages.
Others point out that atonement seems rather to involve 'propitiation', the turning away of wrath by an offering. It does not merely expiate in the sense of dismissing sin; it propitiates in the sense of averting God's punishment. Linguistic work by L. Morris and others appears to have refuted the expiation theory as Dodd and his supporters have presented it. Recent Romans commentators like Moo, Mounce and Stott have upheld Morris' arguments, as have I. H. Marshall and others. Current Septuagint lexicography points in the same direction (J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, pp. 160–161).
The key to this discussion is the fact that since at least the Enlightenment the notion of a wrathful God has been widely rejected by many theologians. Dodd (*The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [London, 1932], p. 23) echoes the sentiments of F. Schleiermacher and A. Harnack (both of whom rejected not only a wrathful God but the whole OT as authoritative for Christians) in arguing that in Jesus' teaching, 'anger as an attitude of God to men disappears, and His love and mercy become all embracing'. Even in Paul, Dodd continues, the wrath of God describes not 'the attitude of God to man, but … an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe'. At a time when humanity has come to be seen as basically good, the concept of divine wrath seems obscene. The nobly intentioned affirmation of God's goodness and therefore of the absence of wrath from his being are of a piece with post-Christian theories of the innate innocence of humanity and the minimal significance of sin in human nature.
The danger of overemphasizing God's wrath does exist. But it hardly justifies the impossible programme of trying to expunge the attribute from the NT record. God's coming wrath is a persistent theme of Jesus' parables. In non-parabolic discourse Jesus spoke repeatedly of 'the fire of hell' (Matt. 5:22) and 'eternal fire' (Matt. 18:8). He urged his followers, 'Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell' (Luke 12:5). The double-edged nature of Jesus' ministry is well summarized in John 3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.' Those who reject God's righteousness become targets of his wrath (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26, 28; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Heb. 10:26–31; Rev. 19:11–21). God's wrath is not a minor or isolated biblical theme.
Atonement takes on its importance, urgency, and poignancy precisely because God's righteous judgment is coming upon humans and their unrighteous ways. Jesus' death not only expiates sin (wipes away its penalty); it also propitiates (turns away the wrath of) God's promised punishment of sin and sinners whose transgressions are not atoned for. In the current climate of scepticism about a wrathful God, the biblical view has recently received strong support from philosopher H. Cassirer, who persuasively calls Christians away from modern sentimentalism and back to the God of whom the prophets, apostles and Jesus spoke (*Grace and Law [Grand Rapids, 1988], pp. 99–107). Propitiation is not a peripheral but a vitally important implication of their references to atonement and its absolute necessity.
Shed Blood: Life or Death?
Debate also surrounds the exact meaning of Hebrew animal sacrifice with respect to atonement. (Some sacrifices were festive or devotional rather than penitential in nature; in such cases the notion of atonement was secondary or absent.) A time-honoured view is that certain atoning sacrifices (*e.g. the high priestly ritual of the Day of Atonement; cf. Lev. 16) carried substitutionary imagery; the sacrificial victim endures the (divine) punishment due to the sinner, enabling the sinner to go free. In recent times this view has been rejected as reading NT theology back into OT religion. Instead, it is proposed that the pouring out of blood symbolized the release of life. The life given up by the animal is somehow freed to provide life for the people who offer sacrifice.
Given that God commanded sacrifice as a means of avoiding the punishment of death (*e.g. Num. 18:32), and that wrongful sacrifice occasionally caused death by God's direct act (*e.g. Num. 16:35), it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that when intelligent worshippers in OT times presented animals for atoning ritual slaughter they understood their sacrifices to involve an element of substitution. 'The ritual retains the note of an objective guilt which can only be removed through sacrifice or substitution' (Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, p. 507). And while the sacrifice did result in life for the worshipper, this was not because poured out blood opened a fount of poured out life. If it did, we should expect a ritual in which the victim gave up only a cup, or perhaps a litre, of blood, not its very life. Rather it was because the shedding of blood leading to loss of life satisfied Yahweh's just demand that violation of his holy will results in death: 'The soul who sins … will die' (Ezek. 18:4; cf. Gen. 2:17). Shedding the blood (extinguishing the 'life'; cf. Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23) of the animal was required in exchange for sparing the life of the worshipper. The death (not only symbolized but actually experienced in the fatal shedding of blood) of a sacrificial victim was necessary for the benefit of the guilty. Such OT convictions are only intensified under the new covenant (Heb. 10:28–31). The release-of-life view is grounded in the modern West's exalted view of humanity and disapproval of a God who demands death for sin, but it lacks convincing support in biblical texts.
The Means of Atonement: New Testament
Jesus' death is consistently presented as an atoning sacrifice for sins. He fulfils (provides the basis for and completes) what OT sacrifices could grant only by way of anticipation. While Jesus' teachings and miracles are of obvious importance, the Gospels do not present them as the primary means of the salvation he offers. Jesus is 'Saviour' not in the sense of spiritual visionary or miraculous power broker but as sacrificial victim, the just for the unjust (1 Pet. 3:18), his life poured out a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).
There is no single definitive NT explanation of the atonement. Jesus is presented as having paid the penalty for sin (Rom. 3:25–26; 6:23; Gal. 3:13). He died in place of sinners so that they might become God's righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). He redeemed sinners through his blood (Eph. 1:7). He paid the price for sinners to go free (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). He won the victory over death and sin, sharing with believers the victory (1 Cor. 15:55–57) that he paraded in spectacular fashion by his cross (Col. 2:15). He put an end to the hostility between warring human factions, most notably Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14–18), with implications for all other ethnic divisions. His example of patient suffering according to God's will and the demands of his kingdom is a precedent for his people to follow (1 Pet. 2:21–23). Peter's statement captures well the means and importance of Jesus' ministry of atonement: 'He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed' (1 Pet. 2:24).
In the light of such passages the historic status of the cross as the symbol of the Christian faith is fitting. The cross is where Jesus died, and Jesus' sinless death is why sinners can have life. In NT parlance 'atonement' and 'cross' are very nearly synonymous.
The varied NT atonement language has given rise in church history to numerous theories of the atonement. Here 'theory' refers to how God accomplished atonement through the cross. Some have stressed the effect that the atonement has on those who believe in it. This has been called the moral influence view and is commonly attributed to Abelard (1070–1142). It has been popular in modern theological liberalism. It contains an element of truth, but taken alone it is inadequate to capture the depth and richness of NT statements. Others, from patristic times onwards, have stressed the victory over sin, death, and the devil (see Spiritual powers) that the atonement accomplished. Christ is conqueror. This theory, too, preserves an important truth, but like the moral influence view it is too limited in scope. In medieval times Anselm (1033–1109) proposed the so-called satisfaction theory: sin is such an affront to God that only one who is both God and man can remedy the problem. Like the other theories Anselm's has commendable aspects. But its focus is too restricted, in part because Anselm worked within the categories of philosophical reasoning with too little input from biblical theology. The same can be said of other theories proposed since.
The NT seems to give greatest direct support to the 'penal substitution' and 'sacrifice' theories. It is obvious throughout Scripture that God atones for sin via sacrifice. The problem with the theory lies in explaining how sacrifice saves. No universally accepted answer has been advanced, despite the impressive range of biblical texts using sacrificial terminology. Among these are passages referring to Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant, a covenant sealed with his blood (*e.g. Matt. 26:28 par.). This implies (self-) sacrifice. So do numerous other, often overlooked, references to Jesus' 'blood' denoting his (sacrificial) death for sin (*e.g. Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; 1 Pet. 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 12:11). The prominence of sacrificial language or imagery elsewhere in the NT, whether in the Gospels (Jesus' passion predictions and the passion narrative itself), in Paul (*e.g. Rom. 3:24–26; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2), or throughout Hebrews (passim), argues strongly for the centrality of sacrifice to NT atonement teaching. One reason for scepticism towards sacrifice theories is perhaps the view, held by many biblical scholars, that Jesus was no more than human. If this is so, and Jesus was at best perhaps a martyr, why should his death, even granting that he intended it somehow to be for others, be any more significant than the deaths of other people for their fellow humans? On the other hand, if Jesus truly was God incarnate, sent by the Father to achieve a goal determined in eternity (*cf. Rev. 13:8: 'slain from the creation of the world'), there is no reason why his death could not bear the atoning significance that biblical language invests in it.
The penal substitution view is likewise strongly supported by numerous biblical authors (*cf. e.g. allusions to Isaiah 53 in various NT passages) and was advanced aggressively by the Reformers. It asserts that atonement primarily involves Jesus' taking the sinner's place ('substitution') in bearing the penalty (hence 'penal') for his or her sin. That penalty was no less than God's wrath and the sinner's death. Various objections have been lodged against this theory, especially in modern times by theologians who disapprove of a God who is not only loving but wrathful and who not only pours out blessing but exacts penalties for transgressions. Yet this view, carefully and positively formulated, is indispensable to an accurate intepretation of the dominical and apostolic witness.
The Scandal of the Atonement
There are continual challenges to the biblical theology of atonement sketched above. Recently M. Winter (*The Atonement, pp. 1, 116, 124) has argued that the crucifixion was, in fact, unnecessary. All humans must do to be reconciled to God is ask sincerely. Moral conversion is enough. For his part, Jesus 'atoned' for sin by asking God for this favour. 'Basically nothing more or less is required for the atonement' than Jesus' intercession (Winter, Atonement, p. 90). R. Funk (*Honest to Jesus [San Francisco, 1996], p. 312) forthrightly demands the abandonment of the doctrine of atonement through the shedding of blood; it is time to 'give Jesus a demotion' (*ibid., p. 306). Other accounts of the meaning of atonement resort to martyrdom as chief explanatory category, or seek to replace 'atonement' with 'incarnation' or 'resurrection' as the essential core of Jesus' saving work, or understand 'atonement' in terms of primarily revelatory rather than propitiatory work. In this latter view salvation comes as human ignorance is dispelled, not as human sin is dealt with via the sacrificial death of God's own Son. The similarity to ancient Gnosticism is remarkable.
It is no surprise that the biblical writers' view of atonement causes consternation in the so-called postmodern climate. It has always called forth reactions ranging from polite rejection to rage. Atonement – the cross – has long been scandalous. Yet in different cultures around the world many continue to embrace the biblical witness, as Christians always have. The doctrine of the atonement retains its dramatic force and explanatory power as a summary of what Jesus came to earth to do (Heb. 10:9–10).
See also: FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION; REDEMPTION; SACRIFICE; SALVATION.
New dictionary of biblical theology. 2001 (T. D. Alexander & B. S. Rosner, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
--
Regards,
Ryan Chia
It is not so much the case that God has a mission for his church in the world,
as that God has a church for his mission in the world.
Mission was not made for the church; the church was made for mission—God's mission.
From The Mission of God by Chris Wright
No comments:
Post a Comment