Substitutionary Atonement
April 7, 2008 by Brad
In the past week, our COAS has seen a lot of discussion on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. To fill out explanations of this, I’d like to direct you all to 2 different locations
First of all, check out our Confessional Statement (#’s 7 and 8). This is a concise and clear explanation of the doctrine.
For a very detailed and thorough explanation, I will direct you to Mars Hill Church in Seattle, for Pastor Mark Driscoll’s sermon on Good Friday, the Day of Atonement. I will warn you, as it is a dark and heavy theme. He goes into a lot of detail about the crucifixion that will make most of us uncomfortable. I recommend it because it definitely does not pull any punches, and is one of the best explanations of the Old Testament sacrificial system and allusions to the Messiah that I have ever seen. It is an excellent sermon overall.
Enjoy!
(7) Redemption of Christ
“We believe that, moved by love and in obedience to his Father, the eternal Son became human” (Brad)
Right off the bat I disagree (and what is this doing in an atonement section anyways when it is outlined earlier?). That is a dual God if you look at it – Father and Son (2 separate beings – or God split into 2).
“fully God and fully human being” (Brad)
I disagree with this claim also – since it fairly impossible a claim. How can God be fully human and if human fully, also God? Doesn’t this make Jesus some kind of super-human and no longer human as we know/acknowledge it? Do any of us have a God nature like Jesus? So how was it he was ‘tempted in every way like us’? It doesn’t add up to what Paul says or even other writers about Jesus (namely God was tempted and died – two things He mentions are not possible).
“reconciled to God all those who believe” (Brad)
I see the term ‘believe’ at the end – what do we mean by saying this? Those who believe the right things about God or those who believe the values from God (to do them)? They are different in nature and make all the theological difference.
“We believe that salvation is found in no one else” (Brad)
This is an exclusive claim – I know that – but I actually do agree in one sense of the way this sentence can be interpreted. Salvation comes from Jesus – but how do we receive that salvation is the key? Is it already available to all no matter what or do we need to say some prayer or something?
(
The Justification of Sinners
“We believe that a zeal for personal and public obedience flows from this free justification.” (Brad)
Believing it is one thing – it being a reality is a whole other thing. So is the claim this: Jesus dies for all, bore all our sins, made us just before God via grace? Nothing we did right? So how come someone has to believe any of this to be saved? God’s grace should be greater than anything we can imagine and I think that sacrifice (if what you are saying is true) means all are saved no matter what they believe (since it not them that matters but Christ). This is like one hair from Universal Reconciliation – you just tap on obedience and even then it means nothing anyways.
Sorry if it seems I am ‘busting balls’ here – I don’t mean to but I want to converse on some of these issues. I just think let’s follow these beliefs out to their whole extent and see what we find.
As for Driscoll, I’ll check him out later - I am guessing I won’t agree with him anyways.
Societyvs,
“Sorry if it seems I am ‘busting balls’ here”
Even if you are, I appreciate that we can discuss this stuff with a mutual sense of humor. I also appreciate your patience with me in getting you some of the resources I have promised. It is still gonna take me a bit, so I apologize for that, but it will happen.
When I saw the baby in “Good Friday: Day of Atonement,” I really really really wanted to shut it off.
I got to the part where the man is hanging himself.
At my age, I can take just about anything, but that was insenstive and stupid.
Yes, I know I was warned, but it was still insensitive and stupid.
Whoever made that, doesn’t know the first thing about suicide. Or what it does to those left behind.
NorEaster,
I understand your revulsion. Totally. If it helps too, the church was given ample warning as to the graphic nature of the service, and children under 12 (i think it was 12) were not allowed at all, and under 17 only by permission.
Again I understand your revulsion. How could they have told that part of the story (Judas hanging himself) and have been sensitive to those who have been affected by suicide? Is the answer to not even talk about / present that part of the story?
I’m asking because I’m sure that those involved approached the decision to include it with a pastoral heart, and must have struggled with the very circumstance you talk about. I’d love to hear your take, though.
Hi Brad,
I’m not entirely sure what your tradition is, but is substitutionary atonement dogmatically necessary for you? I sometimes wonder if it is one of several possible ways to think about how Christ can reconcile us to God. While it is instructive and illuminating to consider how this miracle occurs, is it trying to draw too tight a boundary around the mystery of God and salvation in Christ to require assent to substitutionary atonement of a believer?
I raise the question for a couple of reasons. First, focus on the substitution seems to downplay the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus. Second, it seems to be grounded at least on part on a philosophy of justice that is more medieval than anything (which is why Anselm was the one to codify it), and which certainly proves a stumbling block in my efforts at evangelism; “what kind of God requires that someone be murdered to return justice to the world?”, which I’m sure you’ve heard before. Third, I think that the more complicated the doctrine which we require Christians to take on, the more difficult our interfaith and ecumenical relationships become. Surely the Creeds were enough of an explanation for the early church…
Thoughts?
Faithfully,
Chris
Chris,
Some good questions. I have mentioned this before elsewhere, but this is a very appropriate place to bring it up again. The idea of substitutionary atonement is deeply rooted in Judaism. Remember that in Genesis 3, we owe death for our sin. That God did not require it but “passed over” it with the sacrifice of an animal is a display of His great abounding mercy. Nonetheless, death was still required, and it was as if the animal sacrifices were only temporary coverings. Jeremiah and Ezekiel both prophesied a coming time when God’s people would have the law written on their heart and God’s Spirit would be in them. It was then revealed by Jesus at the Last Supper that He was the fulfillment of those prophecies, but that it would require His life to do so. He needed to become the perfect sacrifice, He needed to pay the penalty that was due the Lord, He needed to take our death onto Himself. Because He did, we are declared righteous, justified. This is substitutionary atonement, and as I said, it is thoroughly Jewish. It also explains why Christians as a Jewish sect do not participate in animal sacrifices. Does that help any?
Great explanation, Mike! Succinct and complete.
Dang… thanks for that Mike. Sorry for not getting to your questions, Chris, it looks like it was good that I didn’t right away. Mike was able to summarize it much more effectively than I.
I would also add (in answer to your first question) that this only magnifies the Incarnation, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus because “practiced what He preached.” A God that teaches us to serve others unto death, who also follows that virtue Himself, is a Good God indeed.
In answer to your 3rd question (ecumenism), I am a Chaplain Candidate in the National Guard. I have not had a problem having interfaith dialog with other denominations and religions so far… In fact, it is the surpassing Grace of Substitutionary Atonement that truly unites Christians across denominations.
Again, awesome questions. This is what I live on.
“Remember that in Genesis 3, we owe death for our sin. That God did not require it but “passed over” it with the sacrifice of an animal is a display of His great abounding mercy. Nonetheless, death was still required, and it was as if the animal sacrifices were only temporary coverings.” (Mike)
Uhm…Mike…I think you are forgetting something in this theology….we all still die…yeah…it’s still happening. So if Jesus’ sacrifice was to replace the ‘temporary coverings’ then how come death is still being required of us? Did i miss a memo somewhere?
“He needed to pay the penalty that was due the Lord, He needed to take our death onto Himself” (Mike)
Same point as above. If Jesus has taken our death - then there should be no death at all for us who believe?
“yeah…it’s still happening.”
Yes, it is. But His resurrection is “proof” of that future promise being fulfilled. This is confirmed in Paul’s epistles as well as Revelation. Revelation especially shows the saints yearning for that future restoration of the new heavens and new earth. The “not yet” aspect is also prophesied in the Old Testament (Ezek. 37). Jesus accomplished in the middle of history what He will do for us at the end of history.
But Brad, if it is ‘not yet’ then what did the atonement actually accomplish? Jesus resurrected - that’s great - but we all die still irregardless of some subsitution for our sins (which apparently is the penalty for our sin - this death thing - passed on from Adam).
We are still paying a penalty for our sins - death…maybe we can wait for a future resurrection (true) - in the mean time - we are still paying for our sins (dying) because the substitution is not fulfilled? Isn;t that what it has to mean in this theoogy?
It’s also quite ludicrous to say Adam sinned so he died and we will not die because our sin has been wiped clean…fact of the matter is…we die…thus sin still exists.
[...] from ‘Substitutionary Atonement’ on Confessions of a [...]
“But Brad, if it is ‘not yet’ then what did the atonement actually accomplish?”
“in the mean time - we are still paying for our sins (dying) because the substitution is not fulfilled?”
You could ask the author of Hebrews (9: 11-14, 28-29):
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through hthe greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of lthe blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God…. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once qto bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
Either way, the author of Hebrews makes it pretty clear that substitutionary atonement is rooted in the Jewish sacrificial system, and it is not intended to prevent death, but to assure the resurrection.
Societyvs,
Also, I am currently reading “Far As The Curse Is Found,” by Michael Williams. I just stumbled upon some relevant stuff.
First, Jesus’ reading of the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:18-19, he stops short of reading the rest of that sentence, which finishes “….and the day of vengeance of our God.” That section paralells “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” in Isaiah 61:1-2.
So he stops short of it and says, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” What this implies is that the (previously expected) single eschatological event of God’s grace and judgment is actually a progressive or staged, “rather than a unitary, single divine event.” Williams goes on to say that “The Year of the Lord’s Favor” is a season of blessing that precedes judgment for a time:
“Jesus has come not to judge the world but to save it. The judgment announced by the prophets and John the Baptist has been delayed so that the gospel of the kingdom can be preached. Jesus says exactly this in Matthew 24:14: ‘And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.’”
Anyway, just thought it relevant to your questions. I found it pretty interesting myself, and have not heard such a concise explanation before. Peace.
First, Jesus’ reading of the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:18-19, he stops short of reading the rest of that sentence, which finishes “….and the day of vengeance of our God.” That section paralells “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” in Isaiah 61:1-2.
Isn’t that so cool!! I had a pastor show that a couple of years ago and have been astounded how the plan has unfolded from the beginning until now. And then…He says He will bring it all to completion…man!!
“so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
So Christ is coming a 2nd time - but not to deal with sins - but with something else…so apparently his sacrifice has dealt with sins - but I would ask ‘how so’? The wages of sin is death - and we are still paying that for some odd reason. Unless somewhere in this current orthodox there is a flaw in the reasoning (being that we still die and struggle with sin each and every day).
I would ask - what do you think is Christ’s atonement actually about? Payment for sins? To merely end the sacrifical system - fulfilling it? To pave a way to God for all (by this I mean the Gentiles) through him? I mean, what is the strength of the atonement?
Christ paid for my sins - or died on my behalf - if this is in regards to resurrection and eternal life benefits - I can dig that. If the sacrifice was for our sins - well then what does that really mean (us dying still and all and basically the Torah and Prophets waiting to be fully fulfilled)? Then isn’t Christ just paving a way to God for all - our role being to follow his teachings to come to God?
Societyvs,
“The wages of sin is death - and we are still paying that for some odd reason.”
Good point, and I think it hits on the primary point of discrepancy in our mutual understandings. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were not only cast out of the Garden and thereby forbidden from the Tree of Life (therefore destined to die physically), but they also suffered immediate spiritual death (separation from the Living God). The sacrificial system God established took the physical death of an animal and counted it as a spiritual covering, even though the people of God still experienced a physical death. When Jesus came, he became the perfect sacrifice, God/man stepping into the groundwork laid in the sacrificial system and removing our spiritual death once and for all. But Jesus did what the animal sacrifices couldnt, he raised from the dead. In His, physical death is conquered too. 1 Corinthians 15 describes this as the first fruits. This means we will rise from the dead too, including those who observed the animal sacrifices before Jesus came. So all of God’s people taste death, but are not left prisoner too it. In other words, now Jesus is our Tree of Life.
Where is thy sting, O death?
You know Mike - I actually agree with your interpretation - except I’d use a figurative death as being mentioned by Paul which foreshadows something that is provided by God through Jesus in the future (ie: resurrection to a new way of living).
Reason I say figurative is because Paul talks about death and resurrection in ways that can in no way be seen as literal when addressing the Romans, Colossians, or Ephesians. Paul actually tells the people they are dead (to sin) and resurrected with Christ - which is not actually true in a literal sense. The people obviously struggle with sin and die. Paul is using this to talk about identification with the Christ movement in Gentile communities - and explaining who they should stop their old ways for the teachings of God ways.
I would say Paul is not contradictory to Jesus in this sense - they want the people to follow the teachings of God and change their ways (a newness of living on earth). It’s the conversion process laid out - which I think happens time after time over periods of years (and not at once as we keep on changing).
Societyvs,
Okay! I agree with you too, except I need to make one minor distinction.
“Reason I say figurative is because Paul talks about death and resurrection in ways that can in no way be seen as literal when addressing the Romans, Colossians, or Ephesians”
It is certainly true that Paul does at times refer to the resurrection in a present, figurative sense, however it would be a mistake to equate that to every time he refers to the resurrection. There are very clear cases where Paul talks in no uncertain terms about a future, very literal resurrection from the dead, my favorite of which is 1 Corinthians 15:12-23
“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.”
I agree Mike - Paul is referring in figurative language in the present to an actual reality in the future (ie: death and resurrection - as shown by Christ).
So…what is the meaning of…
I am crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live, Jesus Christ now lives in me.
I’ve always understood it to mean, I have died to myself and now live for Jesus. He has taken up residence within me through His Spirit, and so now I can walk in newness of life because of resurrection power.
I know this does not mean I will never sin, but I will be able through His Spirit to choose not to sin. Never sinless while living in the flesh, but day by day being changed as I surrender more to His Life within.
Am I way off in y’all’s way of thinking?
if jesus was God and God was jesus, God killed Godself to appease God.
great reasoning.
instead i suggest we take the idea that jesus was indeed a sacrifical lamb but with a twist. he was the scapegoat of his people. it is recognized that animal species other than humanity also learn by imtation, nevertheless, humans lack the ‘braking mechanism’ of animal species where rivalry ends when one submits to the other (dominance-submission).
Mimesis, this imitative desire that leads us to violence, has been redeemed through the person and work of Jesus. Just as Jesus imitates the Father, so we who have been called by him, imitate him. That is, redemption consists of a real alternative; to imitate one another or to imitate God.
Michelle,
I cant speak for every one of my colleagues, but that sounds good to me.
Luke,
I realize the struggle that much of this stuff presents, however it is important to realize that if God were truly God, then He wouldnt need our approval of the way He has done things. In other words, the fact that you (i imagine) comment sarcastically on God’s “great reasoning” seems to communicate you would have preferred God consult you on the way He has chosen to redeem His people. If I am reading you incorrectly I apologize.
I dont want that to sound harsh, but if God cannot operate without our say-so than He is no better than little man-made idols.
“If jesus was God and God was jesus, God killed Godself to appease God.”
Aahhh! But what responsibility does The Creator have toward His creations? What responsibility does a parent have toward His children?
Don’t forget. In Genesis 1:1, the noun “God” is plural and the verb “created” is singular. At least in the original Hebrew. (Sorry to be repeating myself, Michelle, but when you’ve got a good idea you can’t help but share it!
)
And, if you care to think about it, that simple lingustic “glitch” answers a lot of questions.
the opening line is a little too harsh. but here are my thoughts on the issue:
1. why is God a he?
2. I totally agree with God operating outside of man’s thought processes. However substitutionary atonement doesn’t sound plausable. It’s about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins, the price of our sin is paid, but it is not paid to God, but by God. I reject the notion that Christ’s death assuaged God’s anger at the sins of humanity.
I see the Christian focus on Jesus suffering and death as being at the heart of much of the suffering inflicted BY Christians. Rather, it is the many positive aspects of Jesus life, his non-violence and concern for justice, which are worth of study and imitation.
This theology of substitutionary atonement is composed of many elements in scripture and tradition–references to Jesus’ death as a sacrifice, ideas of redemptive suffering, and a deep tradition of eucharistic remembrance that Jesus died “for us.” These elements appear in all branches and eras of Christian tradition. But the organization of them into a complete substitutionary view of the atonement is much less universal. Such a view has never been prominent in the Eastern Christian church, and it was not the dominant view in the Western church for the first half of its history.
Many scholars, and myself included, think the rise of atonement theology represented a terrible wrong turn, plunging Christian spirituality into a toxic brew of idealized masochism, authorized retributive violence and social domination.
that it was rather about Jesus rendering the power of unforgiveness and bitterness, etc., ineffective. In this sense, Jesus gave his life in example so we could be liberated from those attitudes which kept us bound. Giving his life freely was the only way to set humanity free from their wrong attitudes (sin).
So it is not that God needed a sacrifice for sins. It is not that God needed Jesus to pay for sins or to become sin for us. The death and resurrection of Jesus was moreso about waking humanity up to the evil that pervaded their hearts.
I don’t think God put Jesus on a cross. I think humanity did. I think hanging Jesus on a cross was an outward expression on what filled the hearts of humanity. In a sense, Jesus was saying ..I want to be magnet for all of your anger,pain, bitterness, unforgiveness, negative energy, etc. Take it out on me… so we can move on and play a new game.
Dr. Fraser of Oxford writes, “Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of Jesus who is either too young or in too much agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric.”
Dr. Fraiser claims that ‘normative’ Christianity not only has nothing to do with the message of Jesus, but that it exists to stifle that message as its mortal enemy.
Jesus prophetic message sent directly from God by God was to love God (Jesus), neighbor and self. The rest is commentary.