Craig Gaunt
12/14/09
Theology I
#1204
Atonement as Salvation
Sacrifice has been universal among the religions of the world since the beginning of time.[1] However, the principle was always the same; give the deity something valuable and the deity would bless you for it. However, the message of the Christian faith works the opposite direction. There is nothing man can bring to sacrifice that could atone for sin. God, in His loving provision, gave His own life in Jesus as a sacrifice so that we as human beings could not only find forgiveness but restoration in our relationship with God. The Christian church calls this salvation and it helps to define it deeper than what many laypeople in America today understand it to be. Kreeft & Tacelli argue that this term means not only the rescuing of the soul from eternal separation from God in hell, but also joy, perfection, and health of the soul.[2] It is shalom, a Hebrew word that means completeness in everything. However, Christian salvation that it is not only humanity (though we are at the apex), but all of the created order is being brought back to God through this initial act of atonement, the cross.[3]
For this treatment of the atonement and its relation to salvation, it will help to start by looking at the Old Testament to see sacrifices as a forerunner to Christ’s. Oden mentions three Old Testament figures who were given an understanding of what a sacrifice by faith looked like. Abel’s offering was accepted because it was given with a faith and trust in the God to whom he gave it.[4] This inward attitude was to be that of the Israelites when they came with their sacrifices, which will be touched upon below. Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac not only demonstrated an unwavering faith, but also shows how a life (ram) was given for another (Isaac).[5] Finally, Job shows the desire of atonement with God not only for his own sins, but even the potential hidden sins of his children (Job. 1:5).[6] There men all lived before the institution of Mosaic Law, but sacrifice is seen all throughout Torah as a means given by God for there to be forgiveness. Garrett comments that these animal sacrifices, while having an objective effect, could not atone for voluntary sins, and those must be punished by death.[7] Although there are five different offerings in the sacrificial system that Oden points out, they are all the same in that, “It is not the blood itself that makes atonement, but the life or animate creation or soul in the blood that is offered as a prayer for atonement.”[8] The hands of the guilty would be placed on the head of the animal as a symbolic transfer of guilt, then the animal was slain (Lev. 1:4; 4:13-20). This was done to show (and the writer of Hebrews points this out) that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). Atonement had to be made not just the keeping of the law, for keeping the law could not save anyone (Rom. 8:3-4). Atonement meant “to cover” in the original Hebrew.[9] This theme of love, forgiveness, redemption, and grace can be seen woven throughout the Old Testament where God continually stresses that He chose Israel not because they deserved it, but because He loved them and gave them grace. Sacrifice as atonement for sin runs throughout the entirety of the Old Testament and even the prophets’ condemnation of the practice was not of the system itself but the wrong attitudes and exploitation of the oppressed that accompanied them.[10] They still understood the proper use of atonement through the blood sacrifices, albeit with a right frame of mind: one focused on repentance.
Virgin Birth
Just as the animals had to die in order to atone, the Father had already planned for the Son to be the one who brings atonement “for us and for our salvation”. This was a work of all three members of the Godhead. The father would send the Son to atone for sin, the Son would come willing out of love for the Father who loved the world, and the Holy Spirit would prepare the hearts for people to understand the cross and accept the atonement. It will help clear the picture if we not look at the birth, life, death, and resurrection of the One making the atonement, Jesus Christ in His Incarnation. Christianity has always believed that Jesus of Nazareth was completely God and completely man, and He was born of a virgin. Wayne Grudem says that the Virgin birth is crucial to understand because it shows salvation comes completely from God, not man (Gal. 4:4-5).[11] Only God can save anyone from the power of death (Isa. 25:7; Hosea 13:14) and this was the mission of Christ on earth. Salvation had to come from the Lord because anything less to the Jewish mind would have been blasphemous (Jonah 2:9). The Virgin birth made possible the uniting of full deity and full humanity into the person of Jesus for, as we will see later, anything less would have compromised either extreme and would have done nothing to atone for the sin of the world.[12] Finally, it makes possible Christ’s true humanity without an inherited sinful nature.[13]
Dr. Bruce McCormack explores the explanation of many Christian theologians as to how the Son of God could be conceived in sinful flesh. It was the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and its completed work at the instant of conception that brought about, neither a new creation nor an “un-fallen” humanity, but a restored one.[14] Torrance notes that in the atonement, Christ “undoes sin and recreates the being of the sinner”.[15] The sanctifying work of restored humanity raised man to a standard that was even higher than a pre-fallen Adam for Jesus shared the old nature with humanity because He was born of a human, but being “the Second Adam” he could now impart this new nature upon humanity: the desire to want to obey God.[16] The Bible calls this regeneration or being “born again”.
Jesus’ Life
Turning now from His birth to His life, Jesus’ obedience to His Father was able to earn righteousness for our sake’s. He never sinned, but He was tempted with real temptations just as we all are, including basic urges, glory, and power. They had to be real because anything less would lead to accusations of Jesus not being fully human or able to sympathize with us in our struggle against sin (Heb. 2:16-18). However, we can also see both that the temptations and Jesus’ divinity were real in that He did not succumb to the temptation for “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1:13 NASB). Some may accuse that Jesus was stopped by His divine nature from ever sinning so He could not possibly relate to us struggling sinners. Grudem has an interesting answer to this. While it may be true that it was impossible for Jesus to sin because of His divine nature, He chose to rely on
His humanity and love and trust in the Father to deliver Him from temptation rather that simply use His power.[17] Obedience is the ultimate test of love so by being perfectly obedient, even unto death, Christ paid our righteousness.[18] In this way, Christ sets the patter for Christian obedient to God and exemplifies a hard truth to comprehend: obedience to God will bring suffering and tribulations in this life. Though, He did much more than subjectively give a moral pattern for humanity to follow. Christ’s active obedience in His earthly life actually earned righteousness for us, and it was His perfect compliance to the perfect law of God that accomplished this.[19] In this way, Jesus did not only wipe our moral slates clean of sin but also willingly gives believers positive righteousness in the eyes of God. We as Christians can now rely on Christ’s perfect obedience to have a right standing with God rather than our own works.
Looking deeper at both His righteous life and vicarious death, Oden writes four characteristics of Christ’s suffering: truly, voluntarily, innocently, and meaningfully. Truly was discussed above. He suffered voluntarily to show His divinity. Nothing happened in Jesus’ life that He had not prepared for in advance, and His suffering was part of His purpose out of His love (Heb. 10:9-10). All four gospels plus the rest of the epistles in the New Testament uphold this view of Christ’s foreknowledge and will to suffer on behalf of humanity, and none of them picture Jesus as the helpless victim of circumstance. He does however suffer as a completely innocent one or else His sacrifice was in vain (Heb. 7:26). Oden cites John Calvin as commenting more on this. Christ was condemned before an earthly judge so that we could be acquitted by a heavenly one.[20] Furthermore, Pilate declared Jesus’ innocence before a crowd but had Him killed anyway so it would be plain that He suffered what we deserved, which harkens back to Ps. 69:4, in which the righteous servant is meant to repay what he did not steal.[21] Christ had to suffer a criminal’s cursed death so that He could be a curse for us (Deut. 21:22-23). Oden notes that this death had to be a criminal’s death, and He had to be numbered with the transgressors so that the innocent one would suffer in the place of the guilty.[22] Finally, Jesus’ suffering served a purpose (Heb. 10:9-10). It is redemptive, obedient suffering that conquered the evil one of this world who now stands condemned because of Christ (John 12:31; 16:11). It was this suffering that reached its apex on the cross and it is here that we now turn.
Crucifixion
When it comes to discussing exactly what happened on the cross that fateful Friday, there are many theories put forth including objective and subjective. The most common description of the early church’s telling of what happened on the cross is the idea of sacrifice and ransom. Rom. 3:25 and 1 Cor. 5:7 show Christ as the once-for-all sacrifice to extinguish, abolish, and destroy whatever guilt we have or ever will incur, making salvation a timeless process that nonetheless happened in real time.[23] In this way, Christ fulfills the three roles of prophet, priest, and king. As prophet, Jesus shows and tells us of God and the sacrifice He must endure, and as priest, He does the atoning work in leading us to God, and as king, He joins us together with the Father and frees us from the chains of sin and death.[24] Calling particular attention to the priestly role, as Christ is the high priest, the cross is His alter and He is the sacrifice upon it. Hebrews 13 looks at this further by saying that just as bodies are burned outside the camp, Jesus’ suffered outside the city gates where the low acts of society took place, execution and burning of garbage. Atonement through the crucifixion of Jesus is grounded first and foremost in both the love and justice of God, for both of these met at the cross (John 3:16; Rom. 3:25). The holiness of God demanded that a perfect sacrifice must be made, not because God is inherently hateful or full of wrath, but because the nature of His perfect justice. However, his love and mercy provided a way for that justice to be met. At the cross, God’s wrath is propitiated or turned away and man’s guilt is expiated or annulled.[25] An explanation from Newland-Smith is appropriate here. Propitiation through the cross did not change God’s anger into love for God has always been loving toward sinners but instead changed our hearts to be free of sin and God-oriented.[26] The crucifixion has restored our fallen nature, destroyed our old selves so that we are what we were meant to be created: in relationship with God.[27] This ransom brought reconciliation in that we were brought back by a all-forgiving Father who never stopped loving us (2 Sam. 14:14).
The idea of ransom is one of the ideas most prominent in Scripture. All of the synoptic gospels center on Christ’s sacrifice making atonement for the sins of the world because we collectively transgressed God’s law (Mark 14:24; Matt. 26:28). Paul’s epistles echo this theme as well as penal substitution he touches on it in nearly every epistle. The Peterine epistles agree with this as does the author of the Hebrews who especially expounds on the idea of Christ as sacrifice (1 Pet. 1:19; Heb. Ch. 7-10). Even John’s gospel stresses the fact that Jesus must be “lifted up” alluring to the crucifixion, and he includes Jesus parables like the grain of wheat that must die in order to produce offspring (3:14; 12:24). It certainly has the most Scriptural support and W.T. Conner in The Gospel of Redemption has three factors that combine to make the ransom atonement idea make more sense: the prevalence of human sin, God’s aversion to it, and God’s desiring deliverance purpose.[28] The idea of God sacrificing Himself as a substitution begs the question, “how can a transcendent God die?” The only solution to this again lies in the Incarnation and a Triune Godhead. As written earlier, Christ is perfectly man and perfectly God. It was Christ’s perfect human nature that died and took the worst form of punishment because he suffered physical, emotional, mental and spiritual distress. The vicarious atonement can be summarized in 2 Cor. 5:21, God made Him our sin so we may become His righteousness.
Another objective theory that does find some credibility in Scripture is the Christus Victor theory. By his crucifixion, death, and resurrection, He has won the victory on our behalf over sin, death, and Satan. The idea of freedom from sin and death can be found in Gal. 5:1 and John 8:36. Some have even used 1 Peter 3:18-21 to show how, after His death, Jesus went into hell and broke its gates down so that souls may go free. It is a vibrant image that emphasizes the kingly aspect of Christ’s lordship over the earth.[29] This theory has also caught some new wind in recent times over the more modernist idea of Jesus having no inherent divinity but was only a moral example to follow. It has resurged because we are now beginning to realize that the Enlightenment and morality based on human logic and example is not only insufficient to solving the crises of the world, but humanity’s fallen sense of reason can actually cause these. One need only look at communism for a recent example of this. This tragic fact caused people to see that there must be some objective value to Jesus and the cross independent of our response to it. As Oden puts it, the cross accomplished something for us and our salvation even when we fail to respond to it.[30]
Objectively, Christians can know this one thing for certain: God accepted Christ’s sacrifice for our salvation, and it is proven by the Resurrection. If Jesus was truly a sinner and deserved death for blasphemy or insurrection against Rome, a resurrection would have been unjust on God’s part. However, it shows that Jesus was fully divine. Our sins are forgiven through Christ in a few different ways that McGrath highlights, including representation, participation, and substitution. The first and last of these has been explained above and can be summarized again with 2 Cor. 5:21. The participation aspect of it says that, through faith, believers are in Christ and share in the blessings He won, but it is also through faith that they share in his sufferings for the sins of the world.[31] Paul mentions this in Col. 1:24. Hence, there are certainly objective facets of the crucifixion which made atonement: adoption into God’s family, justification and legal acquittal of sin, redemption and freedom through payment, and salvation, being delivered from something evil.[32] There is one final aspect here worth saying. The atonement is not only reconciliation between humanity and God, it also broke down the walls between Jews and Gentiles so that now Gentiles have access to the community of divine revelation and salvation.[33]
There is also a subjective aspect to the atonement of Christ. The subjective theories should not be at odds with the objective ones but instead should complement them into a whole understanding. One of the main ones is the Moral Influence Theory crafted by Peter Abelard. By Jesus dying on the cross, it does not mean he accomplished anything in regard to atonement for sin, but it is focused on God’s divine love. There are some highlights to this theory in that it does stress the role of God as a loving Father figure rather than Judge or Lord which can be perceived negatively. However, as in any scientific discipline, the subjective must depend on the objective. Without it, God inflicted Himself for nothing.[34] Plus, this view is reminiscent of Pelagius who taught that one is innately good enough to follow God’s law with no grace or help, and Jesus is the example of this, although this theory does not deny His deity.[35] One theory that does deny it, saying that Jesus was only a man is the Example Theory which is similar to moral influence, but the difference is that his death is not the main point of his life, rather it was his teachings and how he lived.[36] A final one not mentioned in class is the Vicarious Confession Theory of John McLeod Campbell. He said, “In the work of Christ, there is either an equivalent punishment or an equivalent sorrow and repentance and Jesus offered the later”.[37] Although this did stress the Fatherhood of God, it contradicts Jesus’ divinity because if Jesus is sorrowful for our sins than this is not true repentance, which involves the sinner turning and confessing.[38] One problem with all of these theories, while there is some good in them, is that they are unscriptural whenever they address the subject of atonement. Some of these and others are also downright heretical because they deny Jesus as being God. The main point to remember is that the atonement had to be objective before it can have any effect of us subjectively.
However, there is a subjective aspect of the atonement, and it is in the response to it. Scripture points that Jesus Christ has died for the sins of the whole world, and yet the Bible clearly says also that there will be people who are destined for eternal separation from God. How is this possible? It lies in the response. John 1:12 stresses both believing and receiving. God is infinite so accepting or rejecting His means of salvation, though it is a finite choice, has infinite ramifications.[39] The gift must be received because it is imperative, and it demands a response. No one is exempt from this decision, and no one can claim ignorance from it. Some may object that there are others who have never heard of this atonement or even of Jesus at all. The Bible teaches that even pagans and unbelievers “know” God deep in their hearts because God’s creation and moral law is evident in their own lives (Acts 17:28; Rom. 1:19-20). While general revelation is not enough to save it in and of itself demands a response. Will the person continue to follow where this first step will guide them or will they reject it outright? Another way of saying this is that all who seek will find; those who are lost did not want to have God in their lives in the first place. The full scope of what happened on the cross at Calvary has subjective meaning because Christians respond to it in faith and it becomes their own governing agent in their lives. This is how Christians can both affirm that Jesus is Lord over the whole world and yet He is still personal Lord and Savior of their lives. The crucifixion has Jesus both objective power and subjective power in how we as human beings respond to His message.
[1] Garrett, James Leo, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, & Evangelical, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Pub. 1995. pg. 5
[2] Kreeft, Peter & Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Ill. Intervarsity Press. 1994. pg. 322
[3] McGrath, Alister E., Christian Theology: An Introduction 4th ed. Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishing. 2007. pg. 326
[4] Oden, Thomas C. Systematic Theology Vol. 2: The Word of Life, San Francisco, Harper Collins Pub. 1992. pg. 363
[5] Ibid. pg. 364
[6] Ibid.
[7] Garrett, pg. 9
[8] Oden, pg. 366
[9] Micks, Marianne H. Loving the Questions: An Exploration of the Nicene Creed, Cambridge, Cowley Pub. 1993. pg. 53
[10] Strobel, Lee, The Case for the Real Jesus, Grand Rapids, Zondervan., 2009. pg. 209
[11] Grudem, Wayne, Bible Doctrine, Jeff Purswell (ed.) Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 1999. pg. 229
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] McCormack, Bruce L., “For Us and Our Salvation: Incarnation and Atonement in the Reformed Tradition.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 43 nos. 1-4 (1998): pg. 296.
[15] Torrance, T.F., The Trinitarian Faith, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1998. pg. 142
[16] Lias, J.J. The Nicene Creed: A Manual London, Swan Sonnenschein, 1897. pg. 147, 148, 166
[17] Grudem pg. 235
[18] Newland-Smith, J. N. The Creed of Christendom as Expressed in the Nicene Creed, London, A.R. Mowbray & Co. 1920. pg. 70
[19] Grudem, pg. 250
[20] Oden, pg. 328
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid., pg. 331
[23] McGrath, pg. 330-331
[24] Ibid., pg. 332
[25] Bloesch, Donald G. Essentials of Evangelical Theology vol. 1, Massachusetts, Prince Press. 2001. pg. 150
[26] Newland-Smith, pg. 75
[27] Ibid. pg. 79
[28] Cited in Garrett, pg. 19
[29] McGrath, pg. 334
[30] Oden, pg. 345
[31] McGrath, pg. 340
[32] Ibid., pg. 350
[33] Torrance, pg. 66
[34] Garrett, pg. 36
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid. pg 43
[37] Ibid., pg. 27
[38] Ibid.
[39] Kreeft & Tacelli, pg. 323