ATONEMENT.

ATONEMENT. The word 'atonement' is one of the few theological terms which derive basically from Anglo-Saxon. It means 'a making at one', and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into a unity. The word occurs in the OT to translate words from the kpr word group, and it is found once in the NT (AV), rendering katallagē (which is better translated 'reconciliation' as RSV). Its use in theology is to denote the work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of man, and in bringing sinners into right relation with God.


I. The need for atonement

The need for atonement is brought about by three things, the universality of sin, the seriousness of sin and man's inability to deal with sin. The first point is attested in many places: 'there is no man who does not sin' (1 Ki. 8:46); 'there is none that does good, no, not one' (Ps. 14:3); 'there is not a righteous man on earth, who does good and never sins' (Ec. 7:20). Jesus told the rich young ruler, 'No one is good but God alone' (Mk. 10:18), and Paul writes, 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3:23). Much more could be cited.
The seriousness of sin is seen in passages which show God's aversion to it. Habakkuk prays 'Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong' (Hab. 1:13). Sin separates from God (Is. 59:2; Pr. 15:29). Jesus said of one sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that it will never be forgiven (Mk. 3:29), and of Judas he said, 'It would have been better for that man if he had not been born' (Mk. 14:21). Before being saved men are 'estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds' (Col. 1:21). There awaits the unrepentant sinner only 'a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries' (Heb. 10:27).
And man cannot deal with the situation. He is not able to keep his sin hidden (Nu. 32:23), and he cannot cleanse himself of it (Pr. 20:9). No deeds of law will ever enable man to stand before God justified (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16). If he must depend on himself, then man will never be saved. Perhaps the most important evidence of this is the very fact of the atonement. If the Son of God came to earth to save men, then men were sinners and their plight serious indeed.


II. Atonement in the Old Testament

God and man, then, are hopelessly estranged by man's sin, and there is no way back from man's side. But God provides the way. In the OT atonement is usually said to be obtained by the sacrifices, but it must never be forgotten that God says of atoning blood, 'I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls' (Lv. 17:11). Atonement is secured, not by any value inherent in the sacrificial victim, but because sacrifice is the divinely appointed way of securing atonement. The sacrifices point us to certain truths concerning atonement. Thus the victim must always be unblemished, which indicates the necessity for perfection. The victims cost something, for atonement is not cheap, and sin is never to be taken lightly. The death of the victim was the important thing. This is brought out partly in the allusions to *BLOOD, partly in the general character of the rite itself and partly in other references to atonement. There are several allusions to atonement, either effected or contemplated by means other than the cultus, and where these bear on the problem they point to death as the way. Thus in Ex. 32:30–32 Moses seeks to make an atonement for the sin of the people, and he does so by asking God to blot him out of the book which he has written. Phinehas made an atonement by slaying certain transgressors (Nu. 25:6-8, 13). Other passages might be cited. It is clear that in the OT it was recognized that death was the penalty for sin (Ezk. 18:20), but that God graciously permitted the death of a sacrificial victim to substitute for the death of the sinner. So clear is the connection that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews can sum it up by saying 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins' (Heb. 9:22).


III. Atonement in the New Testament

The NT takes the line that the sacrifices of old were not the root cause of the putting away of sins. Redemption is to be obtained even 'from the transgressions under the first covenant' only by the death of Christ (Heb. 9:15). The cross is absolutely central to the NT, and, indeed, to the whole Bible. All before leads up to it. All after looks back to it. Since it occupies the critical place, it is not surprising that there is a vast volume of teaching about it. The NT writers, writing from different standpoints, and with different emphases, give us a number of facets of the atonement. There is no repetition of a stereotyped line of teaching. Each writes as he sees. Some saw more and more deeply than others. But they did not see something different. In what follows we shall consider first of all what might be termed the common, basic teaching about the atonement, and then some of the information that we owe to one or other of the NT theologians.

a. It reveals God's love for men

All are agreed that the atonement proceeds from the love of God. It is not something wrung from a stern and unwilling Father, perfectly just, but perfectly inflexible, by a loving Son. The atonement shows us the love of the Father just as it does the love of the Son. Paul gives us the classic exposition of this when he says, 'God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us' (Rom. 5:8). In the best-known text in the Bible we find that 'God so loved the world that he gave his only Son …' (Jn. 3:16). In the Synoptic Gospels it is emphasized that the Son of man 'must' suffer (Mk. 8:31, etc.). That is to say, the death of Christ was no accident: it was rooted in a compelling divine necessity. This we see also in our Lord's prayer in Gethsemane that the will of the Father be done (Mt. 26:42). Similarly, in Hebrews we read that it was 'by the grace of God' that Christ tasted death for us all (Heb. 2:9). The thought is found throughout the NT, and we must bear it well in mind when we reflect on the manner of the atonement.

b. The sacrificial aspect of Christ's death

Another thought that is widespread is that the death of Christ is a death for sin. It is not simply that certain wicked men rose up against him. It is not that his enemies conspired against him and that he was not able to resist them. He 'was put to death for our trespasses' (Rom. 4:25). He came specifically to die for our sins. His blood was shed 'for many for the forgiveness of sins' (Mt. 26:28). He 'made purification for sins' (Heb. 1:3). He 'bore our sins in his body on the tree' (1 Pet. 2:24). He is 'the propitiation for our sins' (1 Jn. 2:2; so, rightly, AV). The cross of Christ will never be understood unless it is seen that thereon the Saviour was dealing with the sins of all mankind.
In doing this he fulfilled all that the old sacrifices had foreshadowed, and the NT writers love to think of his death as a sacrifice. Jesus himself referred to his blood as 'blood of the covenant' (Mk. 14:24), which points us to the sacrificial rites for its understanding. Indeed, much of the language used in the institution of the Holy Communion is sacrificial, pointing to the sacrifice to be accomplished on the cross. Paul tells us that Christ 'loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God' (Eph. 5:2). On occasion he can refer, not to sacrifice in general, but to a specific sacrifice, as in 1 Cor. 5:7, 'For Christ our paschal lamb (better, passover) has been sacrificed.' Peter speaks of 'the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot' (1 Pet. 1:19), which indicates that in one aspect Christ's death was a sacrifice. And in John's Gospel we read the words of John the Baptist, 'Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world' (Jn. 1:29). Sacrifice was practically the universal religious rite of the 1st century. Wherever men were and whatever their background, they would discern a sacrificial allusion. The NT writers made use of this, and employed sacrificial terminology to bring out what Christ had done for men. All that to which the sacrifices pointed, and more, he had fully accomplished by his death.

c. The representative nature of Christ's death

It is agreed by most students that Christ's death was vicarious. If in one sense he died 'for sin', in another he died 'for us'. But 'vicarious' is a term which may mean much or little. It is better to be more precise. Most scholars today accept the view that the death of Christ is representative. That is to say, it is not that Christ died and somehow the benefits of that death become available to men (did not even Anselm ask to whom more fittingly than to us could they be assigned?). It is rather that he died specifically for us. He was our representative as he hung on the cross. This is expressed succinctly in 2 Cor. 5:14, 'one died for all; therefore all have died'. The death of the Representative counts as the death of those he represents. When Christ is spoken of as our 'advocate with the Father' (1 Jn. 2:1) there is the plain thought of representation, and as the passage immediately goes on to deal with his death for sin it is relevant to our purpose. The Epistle to the Hebrews has as one of its major themes that of Christ as our great High Priest. The thought is repeated over and over. Now whatever else may be said about a High Priest, he represents men. The thought of representation may thus be said to be very strong in this Epistle.

d. Substitution taught in the New Testament

But can we say more? There is a marked disinclination among many modern scholars (though not by any means all) to use the older language of substitution. Nevertheless, this seems to be the teaching of the NT, and that not in one or two places only, but throughout. In the Synoptic Gospels there is the great ransom saying, 'the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' (Mk. 10:45). Both the details ('ransom' has a substitutionary connotation, and anti, 'for', is the preposition of substitution) and the general thought of the passage (men should die, Christ dies instead, men no longer die) point to substitution. The same truth is indicated by passages which speak of Christ as the suffering Servant of Is. 53, for of him it is said, 'he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed … the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all' (Is. 53:5f.). The shrinking of Christ in Gethsemane points in the same direction. He was courageous, and many far less worthy than he have faced death calmly. The agony seems to be inexplicable other than on the grounds disclosed by Paul, that for our sake God 'made him to be sin, who knew no sin' (2 Cor. 5:21). In his death he took our place, and his holy soul shrank from this identification with sinners. And it seems that no less than this gives meaning to the cry of dereliction, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' (Mk. 15:34).
Paul tells us that Christ 'redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us' (Gal. 3:13). He bore our curse, which is but another way of saying substitution. The same thought lies behind Rom. 3:21–26, where the apostle develops the thought that God's justice is manifested in the process whereby sin is forgiven, i.e. the cross. He is not saying, as some have thought, that God's righteousness is shown in the fact that sin is forgiven, but that it is shown in the way in which sin is forgiven. Atonement is not a matter of passing over sin as had been done previously (Rom. 3:25). The cross shows that God is just, at the same time as it shows him justifying believers. This must mean that God's justice is vindicated in the way sin is dealt with. And this seems another way of saying that Christ bore the penalty of men's sin. This is also the thought in passages dealing with sin-bearing as Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24. The meaning of bearing sin is made clear by a number of OT passages where the context shows that the bearing of penalty is meant. For example, in Ezk. 18:20 we read, 'The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for (Heb. 'bear') the iniquity of the father …', and in Nu. 14:34 the wilderness wanderings are described as a bearing of iniquities. Christ's bearing of our sin, then, means that he bore our penalty.
Substitution lies behind the statement in 1 Tim. 2:6 that Christ gave himself 'a ransom for all'. antilytron, translated 'ransom', is a strong compound meaning 'substitute-ransom'. Grimm-Thayer define it as 'what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption'. It is impossible to empty the word of substitutionary associations. A similar thought lies behind John's recording of the cynical prophecy of Caiaphas, 'it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish' (Jn. 11:50). For Caiaphas the words were sheer political expediency, but John sees in them a prophecy that Christ would die instead of the people.
This is a formidable body of evidence (and is not exhaustive). In the face of it it seems impossible to deny that substitution is one strand in the NT understanding of the work of Christ.

c. Other

NT aspects of the atonement

Such are the main points attested throughout the NT. Other important truths are set forth in individual writers (which does not, of course, mean that they are any the less to be accepted; it is simply a method of classification). Thus Paul sees in the cross the way of deliverance. Men naturally are enslaved to sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14). But in Christ men are free (Rom. 6:14, 22). Similarly, through Christ men are delivered from the flesh, they 'have crucified the flesh' (Gal. 5:24), they 'do not war after the flesh' (2 Cor. 10:3, AV), that flesh which 'lusteth against the Spirit' (Gal. 5:17, AV), and which apart from Christ spells death (Rom. 8:13). Men are under the wrath of God on account of their unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), but Christ delivers from this, too. Believers are 'justified by his blood', and thus will 'be saved by him from the wrath of God' (Rom. 5:9). The law (i.e. the Pentateuch, and hence the whole Jewish Scripture) may be regarded in many ways. But considered as a way of salvation it is disastrous. It shows a man his sin (Rom. 7:7), and, entering into an unholy alliance with sin, slays him (Rom. 7:9–11). The end result is that 'all who rely on works of the law are under a curse' (Gal. 3:10). But 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law' (Gal. 3:13). Death to men of antiquity was a grim antagonist against whom none might prevail. But Paul sings a song of triumph in Christ who gives victory even over death (1 Cor. 15:55–57). It is abundantly plain that Paul sees in Christ a mighty Deliverer.
The atonement has many positive aspects. It must suffice simply to mention such things as redemption, reconciliation, justification, adoption and propitiation. These are great concepts and mean much to Paul. In some cases he is the first Christian of whom we have knowledge to make use of them. Clearly he thought of Christ as having wrought much for his people in his atoning death.
For the writer to the Hebrews the great thought is that of Christ as our great High Priest. He develops thoroughly the thought of the uniqueness and the finality of the offering made by Christ. Unlike the way established on Jewish altars and ministered by priests of the Aaronic line, the way established by Christ in his death is of permanent validity. It will never be altered. Christ has dealt fully with man's sin.
In the writings of John there is the thought of Christ as the special revelation of the Father. He is One sent by the Father, and all that he does must be interpreted in the light of this fact. So John sees Christ as winning a conflict against the darkness, as defeating the evil one. He has much to say about the working out of the purpose of God in Christ. He sees the true glory in the lowly cross whereon such a mighty work was done.
From all this it is abundantly apparent that the atonement is vast and deep. The NT writers strive with the inadequacy of language as they seek to present us with what this great divine act means. There is more to it by far than we have been able to indicate. But all the points we have made are important, and none is to be neglected. Nor are we to overlook the fact that the atonement represents more than something negative. We have been concerned to insist on the place of Christ's sacrifice of himself in the putting away of sin. But that opens up the way to a new life in Christ. And that new life, the fruit of the atonement, is not to be thought of as an insignificant detail. It is that to which all the rest leads. (*EXPIATION, *FORGIVENESS, *PROPITIATION, *RECONCILIATION, *REDEEMER, *SACRIFICE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY. D. M. Baillie, God was in Christ, 1956; J. Denney, The Death of Christ, 1951; The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, 1917; G. Aulen, Christus Victor, 1931; E. Brunner, The Mediator; K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4, i; The Doctrine of Reconciliation; J. S. Stewart, A Man in Christ; Anselm, Cur Deus Homo; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 1965; The Cross in the New Testament, 1967; J. Knox, The Death of Christ; J. I. Packer, 'What did the Cross achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution', TynB 25, 1974, pp. 3–45.       L. L. Morris


Morris, L. L. (1996). c. Other. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (102–104). Leicester, England; 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