Paul and the early church certainly saw that the death of Jesus dealt with human sinfulness. The way in which this happened, the way in which Christ saves, is the conversation that occurs within the doctrine of the atonement. The bible speaks of several ways in which to describe the saving work of Christ. Over 2000 years of history, councils and great Christian thinkers, the church has not settled or set in concrete an atonement theory that is to govern orthodoxy. This is indicative of the multi-faceted nature of the atonement.
The atonement has been best described like that of a diamond. From different angles you get varying views of its brilliance. There is no specific angle that you can view the atonement from which you will see all its components. The bible uses many key terms and metaphors to speak of the salvation event. Romans 3:25 speaks of sacrifice; Mark 10:45 speaks of ransom; Eph 1:7 of redemption; Romans 3:24 of Justification, Romans 5:10 of reconciliation; Col 2:13-14 of forgiveness and Col 1:20 speaks of victory over evil. This small cross section highlights again the multifaceted nature of the atonement.
Although the bible uses many different metaphors to describe the atonement, a few key theological and historical realities need to be present within any atonement theory.
A few of these are: that salvation is the work and initiative of God alone, sin is a real and serious problem and the atonement is not a result of a split Trinity – ie the Father vs the Son. Each theory must also attest to the fact that Jesus’ death cannot be over spiritualised so as to neglect the reality that Jesus died in first century Jerusalem, and as 1 Peter 1:20 makes plain, the cross was in the eternal plan of God.
Within this framework we see a number of atonement theories. The Christus Victor Theory, The Penal Substitution Theory and the Moral influence theory to name a few.
Each theory has its strengths and weaknesses. A truly biblical understanding of the atonement requires that all the strengths of each theory are taken up, while their weaknesses are left behind. The most popular of these is the Penal Substitution theory. This is regarded as influential within modern, evangelical circles, and the most commonly used atonement theory.
The strengths of this theory lie in the many New Testament passages that support it. Plus, it takes sin seriously and ultimately punishes sin. However, weaknesses also cloud this theory. To modern minds it sounds unjust, and in the way it is frequently caricatured seems to divide the Trinity. The way that this theory is often caricatured in our churches depicts God the Father as angry and wrathful and looking to take his anger out on sinful humanity, but a loving, innocent Jesus, steps in and takes our place, substituting himself for us. This depiction of the atonement has led many to see the cross as a form of cosmic child abuse and retributive violence.
The Christus Victor theory is strengthened by its focus on the defeat of evil and passages from the NT that speak of price, ransom and redemption. However, a weakness of this theory is that is fails to portray a sense that Christ death was ‘for us’ Instead, the emphasis is on Satan and God. The Moral Influence theory, which is classed as a subjective theory, because the effects of this model rest in the attitudes of humans rather than a change in circumstance. The strengths of this theory is that it reflects a relational framework and views sin as a matter of rebellion of our hearts towards God, yet it can downplay the reality of sin which leads to the cross being more about reconciliation than forgiveness. So within these three theories alone, you can see the many differing angles evident in the atonement.
The reason why the atonement is multifaceted is due to the fact the bible makes reference too many metaphors as we have seen. But it’s also because there is no a-cultural atonement theory. It is best when sharing of the way in which Christ saves to use a metaphor that speaks to the need that people are most conscious. If a prisoner has been imprisoned for some time he would be feeling a need to be released. Therefore speaking of Christ death as a ransom may probably be appropriate and most meaningful.
Although it is important to find a metaphor of the atonement that speaks to the needs of the hearers, this raises an important question of how much do you not say about the saving work of Christ in order to make it appropriate to the hearers. Or, how much should culture dictate the truth of the message of the cross.
Any atonement motif must declare the work of a Trinitarian God and express that God’s holiness and love were working together. An appropriate way to move forward to avoid this mistake is to always ensure that any atonement metaphor is told in the context of the gospel story.
It is also necessary within any talk of the atonement to stress that Jesus wasn’t just our substitute, in that he took our place and we weren’t involved, but that we died with him and are found in him on the cross. This is expressed as participatory substitution.
Although the death of Jesus is multifaceted, it must never be denied that his death was for us.
The atonement has been best described like that of a diamond. From different angles you get varying views of its brilliance. There is no specific angle that you can view the atonement from which you will see all its components. The bible uses many key terms and metaphors to speak of the salvation event. Romans 3:25 speaks of sacrifice; Mark 10:45 speaks of ransom; Eph 1:7 of redemption; Romans 3:24 of Justification, Romans 5:10 of reconciliation; Col 2:13-14 of forgiveness and Col 1:20 speaks of victory over evil. This small cross section highlights again the multifaceted nature of the atonement.
Although the bible uses many different metaphors to describe the atonement, a few key theological and historical realities need to be present within any atonement theory.
A few of these are: that salvation is the work and initiative of God alone, sin is a real and serious problem and the atonement is not a result of a split Trinity – ie the Father vs the Son. Each theory must also attest to the fact that Jesus’ death cannot be over spiritualised so as to neglect the reality that Jesus died in first century Jerusalem, and as 1 Peter 1:20 makes plain, the cross was in the eternal plan of God.
Within this framework we see a number of atonement theories. The Christus Victor Theory, The Penal Substitution Theory and the Moral influence theory to name a few.
Each theory has its strengths and weaknesses. A truly biblical understanding of the atonement requires that all the strengths of each theory are taken up, while their weaknesses are left behind. The most popular of these is the Penal Substitution theory. This is regarded as influential within modern, evangelical circles, and the most commonly used atonement theory.
The strengths of this theory lie in the many New Testament passages that support it. Plus, it takes sin seriously and ultimately punishes sin. However, weaknesses also cloud this theory. To modern minds it sounds unjust, and in the way it is frequently caricatured seems to divide the Trinity. The way that this theory is often caricatured in our churches depicts God the Father as angry and wrathful and looking to take his anger out on sinful humanity, but a loving, innocent Jesus, steps in and takes our place, substituting himself for us. This depiction of the atonement has led many to see the cross as a form of cosmic child abuse and retributive violence.
The Christus Victor theory is strengthened by its focus on the defeat of evil and passages from the NT that speak of price, ransom and redemption. However, a weakness of this theory is that is fails to portray a sense that Christ death was ‘for us’ Instead, the emphasis is on Satan and God. The Moral Influence theory, which is classed as a subjective theory, because the effects of this model rest in the attitudes of humans rather than a change in circumstance. The strengths of this theory is that it reflects a relational framework and views sin as a matter of rebellion of our hearts towards God, yet it can downplay the reality of sin which leads to the cross being more about reconciliation than forgiveness. So within these three theories alone, you can see the many differing angles evident in the atonement.
The reason why the atonement is multifaceted is due to the fact the bible makes reference too many metaphors as we have seen. But it’s also because there is no a-cultural atonement theory. It is best when sharing of the way in which Christ saves to use a metaphor that speaks to the need that people are most conscious. If a prisoner has been imprisoned for some time he would be feeling a need to be released. Therefore speaking of Christ death as a ransom may probably be appropriate and most meaningful.
Although it is important to find a metaphor of the atonement that speaks to the needs of the hearers, this raises an important question of how much do you not say about the saving work of Christ in order to make it appropriate to the hearers. Or, how much should culture dictate the truth of the message of the cross.
Any atonement motif must declare the work of a Trinitarian God and express that God’s holiness and love were working together. An appropriate way to move forward to avoid this mistake is to always ensure that any atonement metaphor is told in the context of the gospel story.
It is also necessary within any talk of the atonement to stress that Jesus wasn’t just our substitute, in that he took our place and we weren’t involved, but that we died with him and are found in him on the cross. This is expressed as participatory substitution.
Although the death of Jesus is multifaceted, it must never be denied that his death was for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment